Full text of "The Planning and administration of design competitions"

See other formats

THE

PLANNING
AND

ADMINISTRATION

DESIGN

COMPETITIONS

LAWRENCE JEFFREY
WITZLING OLLSWANG

DESIGN NATIONAL
ARTS ENDOWMENT
PROGRAM FOR THE ARTS

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013

http://archive.org/details/planningadministOOwitz

THE

PLANNING

AND

ADMINISTRATION

DESIGN

COMPETITIONS

THE

PLANNING

AND

ADMINISTRATION

DESIGN

COMPETITIONS

LAWRENCE JEFFREY

WITZLING OLLSWANG

Midwest Institute for Design Research
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

The Planning and Administration of Design Competitions

All rights reserved. Published in the United States by the Mid-
west Institute for Design Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

53217

No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, stored in
a retrieval system or transmitted in any form without the prior
written consent of the authors

The text is set in Palatino, and was printed by Ries Graphics,
Butler, Wisconsin

Book and cover design by Jeffrey Ollswang.

Witzling, Lawrence P., 1946-

Planning and administration of design competitions.

Bibliography: p.

1 . Design — Competitions — Planning. 2. Design — Competi-
tions — Management. I. Ollswang, Jeffrey, E., 1940- . II.
Title.
NK1520.W58 1986 745.4'079 86-5140

ISBN 0-937169-00-5

to the Sponsors and Competitors

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book would not have been possible without the sup-
port and encouragement of the leadership and staff of the Design
Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts. Fore-
most, we sincerely thank Michael J. Pittas, the past director of the
program who nurtured these and other endeavors to promote
effective design competitions, and Adele Chatfield-Taylor, the
current director, who has added new enthusiasm and direction
to the effort.

Charles Zucker, Peter Smith, and Rachel Nichols from the
Endowment staff have contributed substantially to the content
and direction of our work. Their guidance has been invaluable
and they deserve major credit for any praise this book may
receive.

We also are indebted to the wit and patience of Bernard
Spring who painstakingly reviewed the manuscript. His remarks
led to the inclusion of new insights, and the deletion of that
which was unnecessary. Robert Greenstreet also deserves spe-
cial thanks for adding to our understanding of the procedural
ramifications of design competitions. There are many other col-
leagues who have contributed to this work and deserve recogni-
tion, especially the competitors and sponsors.

Last, we are deeply grateful to our families: to our spouses
whose patience and understanding made this feasible, and to
our children, without whose assistance this endeavor would
have been completed substantially earlier.

Lawrence Philip Witzling Jeffrey Edward Ollswang

School of Architecture and Urban Planning
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

January, 1986

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Dedication v

Acknowledgements vi

List of Figures xi

Introduction 1

Chapter One: Planning A Competition 3

1.1 Preliminary Issues 3

1.1a Technical Assistance 6

1.1b The Sequence of Decisions 6

1.2 Selecting the Results 7

1.3 Selecting the Designers 12

1.3a Open Competitions 13

1.3b Invited Competitions 13

1.3c The Charette (Design Event) 15

1.3d The RFQ (Request-for-Qualifications) 15

1.3e Two-Stage Competitions: The Designers and

the Design 16

1.3f Two-Stage Competitions: The Second Phase . . 17

1.4 Selecting the Rewards 17

1.4a Types of Prizes and Awards 17

1.4b Awards and Post-Competition Activities 18

1.5 Defining the Problem: The Challenge 20

Chapter Two: Managing a Competition, Roles and

Responsibilities 21

2.1 The Sponsor 21

2.1a Financial Responsibility 21

2.1b Assembling the Team 24

2.1c Selecting an Adviser 25

2. Id Professional and Ethical Conduct 28

2.2 The Professional Adviser: Manager, Coach and

Referee 28

2.2a The General Manager: Executive Decisions ... 29
2.2b The Coach: Sponsor-Competitor

Communications 29

2.2c The Referee: Validating the Competition 31

2. 2d The Adviser's Contract 31

2.3 The Competition Staff 32

Page

2.4 Advisory Panels 34

2.4a Conflict Resolution 34

2.4b Technical Expertise 36

2.4c Resource Development 36

2.4d The Panel's Authority 37

2.5 The Jury 37

2.5a Evaluating and Selecting Potential Jurors 38

2.5b Jury Composition 38

2.5c Jury Leadership 42

Chapter Three: Allocating Time and Money 43

3.1 The Budget 43

3.1a Trade-Offs 43

3.1b Revenues 48

3.1c Cash Prizes and Long-Term Costs 49

3. Id Budget Preparation 49

3.2 The Schedule 50

3.2a Deadlines 50

3.2b Preparing the Work Schedule 51

Chapter Four: Communications 55

4.1 The Sequence of Communication 55

4.2 The Announcement 56

4.3 Design and Publication of Documents 58

4.4 Question and Answer Period 64

4.5 Face-to-Face Communications 68

4.6 Post-Competition Dialogue 68

Chapter Five: The Competition Program 69

5.1 Program Development and Review 70

5.2 Guidelines: Requirements, Recommendations and

Options 70

5.2a Eligibility 74

5.2b Registration Fees and Procedures 75

5.2c Deadlines and Deliveries 75

5. 2d Presentation Guidelines 80

5.2e Anonymity 82

5.2f Awards 86

5.2g Ownership and Use of Submissions 87

5.2h Return of Submissions 91

vui

Page

5.3 Specifying the Design Problem 91

5.3a Precision and Clarity 94

5.3b Evaluative Criteria 95

5.4 Testing the Program: The Problem, The Criteria and

The Presentation 98

5.5 Supplementary Information 102

Chapter Six: The Jurying Process 105

6.1 Initiation of the Process 105

6.2 Facilities 107

6.3 Presenting the Submissions Ill

6.4 Jury Chairperson Ill

6.5 Disqualification 112

6.6 Voting Procedures 117

6.7 Record Keeping 117

6.8 Opening the Envelope 121

6.9 The Awards Ceremony 123

6.10 Sponsor Briefings 125

6.11 The Jury Report 127

Chapter Seven: Post-Competition Activities, Applications

and Implementation 129

7.1 Design Commissions 130

7.1a Negotiations 132

7.1b Ownership of Ideas 133

7.1c Contracts and Contingencies 133

7.2 Promotion and Education 134

7.2a Catalogues 135

7.2b Exhibits 139

7.2c Journals and Magazines 141

7.2d Other Visual Media 142

7.3 Resource Development 142

7.4 Design-Build and Design-Develop Contracts 144

7.5 Archival Records 150

Bibliography 156

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1.1 Agenda for Preliminary Planning 4

1.2 Sequence of Pre-Competition Decisions 8

1.3 Competition Types and Desired Results 10

1.4 Awards and Service Contracts 19

2.1 Roles and Responsibilities by Type of Activity 22

2.2 The Adviser's Services and Responsibilities 26

2.3 Staff Assignments for Competitions 33

2.4 Tasks for Advisory Panels 35

2.5 Jurors' Services and Responsibilities 40

3.1 Sample Budgets, 1983-1985 (in $1,000) 44

3.2 Typical Schedules 52

4.1 Types of Announcements 57

4.2 Contents of Announcements 59

4.3 Production Times for Documents 66

5.1 Program Contents 71

5.2 Eligibility Criteria 76

5.3 Registration Fees for Open Competitions 79

5.4 Deadlines and Delivery Requirements 81

5.5 Presentations: Requirements, Recommendations

and Options 83

5.6 Types of Awards 88

5.7 The Problem Statement 92

5.8 The Problem, the Criteria and the Presentation .... 99

5.9 Checklist for Supplementary Information 100

6.1 Jury Preparation 106

6.2 Jury Facilities 108

6.3 Disqualification Procedures and Options 114

6.4 Voting and Selection Procedures 118

6.5 Notifying the Winners 120

6.6 Awards Ceremony (and Press Conference) 122

6.7 Sponsor Briefing 124

6.8 Jury Report (or Catalogue) 126

7.1 Awarding Design Commissions 131

7.2 Post-Competition Promotion and Education 136

7.3 Post-Competition Resource Development 143

7.4 Principles for Design/Development Competition
Procedures 146

7.5 Post-Competition Construction and Development . . 151

7.6 Archives and Records 152

The Eiffel Tower — the promise of design excellence through competi-
tions.

INTRODUCTION

Competitions are a unique way to achieve design excellence —
but only if they are planned and managed effectively. Each one is
tailored to a unique combination of design problems, client aspi-
rations and resources. There are, nevertheless, recurring steps in
the competition process which have predictable problems and
various solutions. Each chapter in this text addresses a different
set of these issues.

This book is intended for use by all competition participants
including sponsors, jurors, advisers and competitors. It would
be unusual if any one member of this audience were interested in
all aspects of design competitions. Consequently, the following
chapters and sections can be used independently to fit the needs
of each reader.

This book stresses basic principles which are explained with
examples of competitions in architecture, urban design, land-
scape architecture and urban planning. The examples were cho-
sen for their familiarity to a broad audience and in no way imply
that competitions in other disciplines are less significant. The
basic principles apply to all fields.

Chapter One discusses preliminary planning and the initial deci-
sions. Chapters Two and Three present the managerial issues
related to personnel, time and financial resources. Chapter Four
focuses on the formal communication process between sponsors
and competitors — a distinctive feature of the competition pro-
cess.

The heart of a design competition is the program document. This
is elaborated in Chapter Five, and the most dramatic event, the
selection of winners by the jury, is described in Chapter Six.

Chapter Seven details the post-competition process and the al-
ternative ways of using competition results. This last chapter
relates also to the beginning of the planning process when the
crucial decisions are made regarding the desired competition
outcomes.

Throughout the book there are illustrations which amplify and
summarize the more important points. As noted, different por-
tions of the book will be of greater interest to different partici-
pants in the competition process. The reader is encouraged to
scan the contents first and become familiar with the general
nature of the book prior to more in-depth study.

CHAPTER ONE

PLANNING
A COMPETITION

It often begins with an informal conversation when someone
remarks "What about a design competition? After all, we'll get
lots of good ideas and then pick the best!" The process may end
just as abruptly with a response like "It's too costly, and what
will we do if we don't get any practical solutions?"

These casual observations are poor reasons to accept, or reject,
the possibility of conducting a competition. Both unnecessary
anxieties and unfounded expectations are typical of initial dis-
cussions. The planning for most competitions begins within this
context of mixed pessimism and optimism. The important point
is to judge the opportunities and problems realistically and to
establish an open-minded attitude with which to examine all the
options.

1.1 PRELIMINARY ISSUES

For those with some prior competition experience, preliminary
discussions may be expedited. For individuals and groups less
familiar with competitions, these initial discussions are an edu-
cational process as well as a planning process.

Initial discussions of realistic objectives and necessary resources
are especially important. Preliminary planning should also con-
sider the resources needed for awards and prizes, the jury, pro-
fessional consultants, staff support, printing and mailing pro-
gram documents, as well as a variety of post-competition
activities (Figure 1.1). Other issues frequently discussed during
preliminary meetings include the schedule of competition
events and the political, economic and legal implications of the
competition.

Figure 1.1 AGENDA FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNING

The following items should be considered when setting the agenda for the first in-depth
discussion about conducting a competition:

1. Immediate
Objectives

What are the immediate short-term objectives?

a. What does the sponsor need and want from a competition?

b. Are these goals realistic?

c. Is a design competition the best way to meet the sponsor's
aspirations?

d. What design problems does the sponsor want the
competitors to address?

2. Implementation How can the immediate objectives be implemented?

a. Who must review and approve the competition results
prior to implementation?

b. Is the sponsor willing and able to provide cash prizes, a
design commission or both?

c. Who will manage post-competition activities such as:

• conferences and exhibitions?

• publications and catalogues?

• negotiations for design contracts?

3. Competition Given the objectives, what types of competitions are
Options appropriate?

a. Should the competition be:

• open, limited or invited?

• local, regional or national?

• one or two-stage?

b. Who should be eligible to compete?

c. Which options seem workable?

4. Long-Term Goals

What long-term goals can be served by the
competition?

a. What does the sponsor anticipate achieving two or three
years after the competition:

• completing a building?

• initiating construction?

• publishing studies?

• seeking public support?

b. What additional funds and support will be needed to
achieve long-term goals?

Figure 1.1 Continued

5. Resources

If a competition is desirable, what resources will be
needed?

a. How much money will be required for:

• cash prizes?

• supplies and expenses?

• staff?

• the jury?

• the professional adviser?

• mailing and distribution?

b. Can additional funds and services be raised by the
sponsor?

c. What in-house staff and services can be allocated to the
competition?

6. Schedule

If resources are available, what will be the schedule of
events?

7. Assistance

a. How soon can the competition begin?

b. What is the desired completion date?

c. How flexible are the start-up and completion dates?

d. What critical events will occur during the course of the
competition, such as:

• budget approvals?

• legislative actions?

• new design issues?

What type of technical assistance will be needed?

a. Locally, will support be available from:

• design professionals?

• public and elected officials?

• business and community leaders?

b. What type of professional expertise is needed to:

• locate, evaluate and select a professional adviser?

• prepare a competition schedule, budget and program?

• locate, evaluate and select jurors?

• assist in assembling an advisory panel?

• evaluate competitors if there is an invited competition
or RFQ?

• develop a facilities program if needed?

1.1a Technical Assistance

Proper technical assistance should be sought before the organi-
zation and content of the competition are finalized. Persons
unfamiliar with conducting competitions frequently overlook
major problems and opportunities. Suppose a potential sponsor
wishes to ensure a practical outcome by holding an invited com-
petition limited to only a few nationally prominent firms. Experi-
ence has shown that invited competitions do not necessarily
ensure practical solutions. A two-stage competition or a compe-
tition based on a request-for-qualifications may be better op-
tions.

Exploring the advantages of different competition plans requires
assistance from a professional competition consultant usually
referred to as a professional adviser. The search for technical advis-
ers or competition consultants generally begins by requesting
information from national design organizations and associ-
ations, or by reviewing design journals that advertise competi-
tions and publish competition results. While responsible consul-
tants often provide limited advice without charge during initial
conversations, sponsors must expect to pay a professional fee for
a more thorough analysis of a competition proposal. The fees for
consultations are equivalent to the hourly rates for principals in
design firms.

1.1b The Sequence Of Decisions

Preliminary discussions should establish the logical sequence of
decisions. Figure 1.2 illustrates the conventional sequence of
decisions and critical issues encountered during preliminary
planning.

Typically, the first decisions concern the anticipated outcomes
and goals, the basic structure of the competition and the critical
design issues to be addressed. The next steps include assembling
the necessary professional and financial resources. Once the
budgetary commitment is made, the person responsible for the
general planning and administration of the competition should
be selected. Traditionally, this person is the professional adviser
(or a project director) who then prepares a comprehensive man-
agement plan.

The next decision is selecting the jurors and establishing a con-
tractual arrangement which specifies their authority and respon-

sibility. Once the jurors have been approached and have agreed
to serve, the competition may be announced pubHcly. The for-
mal announcement is an imphed agreement between the spon-
sor and potential competitors. It is usually the point of no return.

All of these initial decisions are important. They shape the entire
competition process. The remainder of this chapter elaborates
these critical preliminary planning issues.

1.2 SELECTING THE RESULTS

The sequence of decisions should begin with a discussion of how
the sponsor wants to use the results of the competition. The end
of the jurying process is just the beginning of the post-competi-
tion activities through which the sponsor realizes the full bene-
fits of the competition. A successful competition plan, therefore,
depends on a proper analysis and selection of competition out-
comes.

The most traditional outcome is, of course, the awarding of a
design commission and associated procedures for contract nego-
tiations. A more substantial outcome would involve the award-
ing of a contract to finance, construct, own and operate a specific
building or building complex. Competition results may also be
used for fund-raising campaigns or as a means to inform and
influence the design professions or the general public. Chapter
Seven describes the principal types of outcomes in greater detail. These
types of outcomes are also noted in Figure 1.3 and several other
tables and diagrams throughout the text.

Appropriate competition outcomes or applications depend on
both the sponsor's intent and commitment. If, for example, a
sponsor intends to use a competition as the first step toward
constructing a building, then this goal should govern the con-
duct of the competition. If, on the other hand, the sponsor
intends to inform and influence the design professions, then the
competition should be oriented to promotional and educational
goals, specific target audiences and communication techniques.
In both instances, the sponsor's objective determines what com-
petition results would be most useful; and this, in turn, influ-
ences the structure of the competition (Figure 1.3).

The sponsor's degree of commitment, however, is an equally
important determinant of the competition. This commitment
should be expressed in the structure of prizes and awards, such

Figure 1.2 SEQUENCE OF PRE-COMPETITION
DECISIONS

When developing the preliminary plan, there is a typical sequence of decisions to be
made by the sponsor

Decision 1:
Select the Desired
Results

Based upon the sponsor's immediate short-term
objectives, the competition results should be defined,
such as:

Decision 2:
Select the
Designers Who
Should Compete

a. awarding a design commission

b. awarding a design-build or design-development contract

c. initiating a promotional and educational campaign

d. developing resources for future projects

e. establishing an archive for future reference.

The sponsor should then decide what form of
competition is appropriate. The alternatives usually
include:

a. open competitions

b. invited competitions

c. Charettes (design events)

d. RFQ's (requests-for-qualifications)

e. two-stage competitions.

The next decision involves the kind of assistance
which will be required, including:

a. competition consultants

b. a professional adviser

c. members of an advisory panel .

A preliminary schedule and budget should then be
developed for:

a. prizes and awards

b. staff supplies and expenses

c. deadlines for critical evey^ts and activities.

After the schedule and budget are outlined the jurors
should be selected. This involves:

Decision 3:

Obtain Professional

Assistance

Decision 4:
Develop a Schedule
and Budget

Decision 5:
Select the Jurors

a. evaluting potential jurors

b. discussing the competition with potential jurors

c. negotiating contracts with jurors and confirming the dates
for the jury deliberations.

Decision 6: The final pre-competition decision is to publicly

Announce the announce the competition. Once the announcement

Competition has been made, the sponsor is morally obligated to

proceed with the competition.

The Sponsor, Saint Paul Mayor George Latimer addresses members of
the press at the public announcement of the winners of the Saint Paul
Cityscape Competition.

as a contract to undertake the next step in the design process.
Suppose, however, that a sponsor intends to build the results,
but cannot make the necessary commitments because of eco-
nomic or political constraints. Then the competition prizes
should not include a design commission (since no commitment
can be made), but should include a strategy for fund-raising or
developing other critical resources. The point, again, is to struc-
ture the competition rewards to fit the sponsor's commitment to
implementation. Section 1.4 elaborates this issue and Figure 1.4
lists different forms of awards and associated service contracts.

Figure 1.3 COMPETITION TYPES AND
DESIRED RESULTS

COMPETITION
TYPE:

COMPETITION RESULTS:

Awarding of

Design

Commissions

Awarding of
Design-Build or
Design-Development
Contracts

Open

i^Recommended:

Especially useful when a
broad range of design ideas
is needed.

Not Recommended

Invited

^^Recommended:

Useful when sponsors
require specific expertise or
design "personalities."

^^Recommended:

Helps limit the number of
entrants to several highly
selected competitors with
demonstrated track records.

Charette
(design event)

Not Recommended

RFQ (request-for-
qualifications)

i^Recommended:

Useful when limited range
of desigfj solutions and
demonstrated expertise are
both necessary.

^^Recommended:

Helps limit the number of
entrants to several highly
selected competitors with
demonstrated track records.

Two-Stage

^^Recommended:

Appropriate when the
design problem and
program are especially
complex.

^^Recommended:

Appropriate when the first
stage is for a design idea
and the second stage is a
plan for implementation.

Figure 1.3 Continued

COMPETITION RESULTS:

COMPETITION
TYPE:

Promotion, Education
or Resource
Development

Archive
Formation

i^'Recommended:

Useful for the production
of promotional materials,
catalogues, exhibits and
publications.

{^Recommended:

Useful for investigating a
broad range of current
attitudes and design
theories.

Open

Not Recommended

{^Recommended:

Helps document the design
work of leading, recognized
professionals.

Invited

^^Recommended:

An excellent media event
that attracts broad public
interest and focuses
attention on specific issues.

{^'Recommended:

Useful only for record
keeping and future
reference.

Charette
(design event)

Not Recommended

{^Recommended:

Useful only for record
keeping and future
reference.

RFQ (request-for-
qualifications)

Not Recommended

{^Recommended:

The first stage results can
illustrate the range of
attitudes and concepts.

Two- Stage

When planning the competition outcomes, one common pitfall
is to misjudge the potential for using the results. Consider a
competition planned only to generate ideas, even though the
sponsor intends to construct a design solution based on the
competition. This strategy of under commitment is risky because
the competitors will focus on general design ideas rather than
the specific constraints involved in construction and develop-
ment.

A reverse pitfall lies in over commitment — overestimating the
certainty or amount of resources which can be committed to
implement the results of the competition. Consider a local gov-
ernment sponsor that overstates its commitment and guarantees
construction of the winning entry in a competition for a new Arts
Center. Competitors and jurors will give a high priority to mat-
ters of construction technology, interior functions and other im-
plementation issues. In fact, other design issues may be more
important, such as creating an impressive public image to in-
crease civic pride and gain political and financial support for
construction at a later date. Had the sponsor indicated a candid
commitment to fund-raising rather than an overstated commit-
ment to construction, the probability of effective design solu-
tions would have been increased.

1.3 SELECTING THE DESIGNERS

Selecting superior designers is as important as selecting the right
competition outcomes. This is particularly apparent in competi-
tions where the talent needed to solve the design problem is not
the same as the skills needed, for example, to resolve problems of
construction, financing or administration. The jury cannot guar-
antee to the sponsor that winning designers in an anonymous
competition will have all the skills needed for all post-competi-
tion steps in implementation — whether these skills involve
construction management, preparing an exhibit, or writing a
development prospectus. On the other hand, it may be relatively
unimportant that the designer be expert in all tasks required for
post-competition implementation.

In some competitions, it may be important that the winning
designer be familiar with local building practices and proce-
dures, or have expertise in a highly specialized field. In other
instances, the sponsor may want evidence that the designer is
cost-conscious and reliable. Analysis of appropriate designer

qualifications should lead directly to one of the basic types of
competitions described in the following subsections. Figure 1.3
illustrates the relationship between the types of designer selec-
tion procedures and the intended competition outcomes. Each of
these selection procedures is discussed in the following sections.

1.3a Open Competitions

In an open competition there are few, if any, restrictions on de-
signers who may submit solutions. Anyone belonging to a recog-
nized design discipline may be eligible to compete. The common
feature of open competitions is an attitude rather than a techni-
cal description of eligibility. The intent is to maximize the range
of eligible competitors and increase the number and variety of
design solutions.

Open competitions should be anonymous and the jury should be
aware only of the merits of the design solutions, and not the past
experience of the designer. Some potential sponsors worry need-
lessly that the jury will select the best design concept only to
discover that the designer who produced the solution lacks some
desirable skill or expertise that the sponsor wants. Consequent-
ly, open competitions are often limited to persons with some
professional qualifications such as licensure, registration or cer-
tification. Sometimes the phrase "open competition" is used to
refer to geographically limited competitions in which designers
must be located within the community.

Open competitions de-emphasize the role of past experience as
the most reliable indicator for judging future design perfor-
mance. Many sponsors choose open competitions precisely be-
cause traditional designer selection procedures have not ful-
filled the promise of design quality. Open competitions, on the
other hand, not only produce more solutions; they almost al-
ways produce more good solutions. Some sponsors, however,
still perceive open competitions as riskier than the invited com-
petitions (described in the next section) because the latter seem
closer to the traditional client-designer relationship. The two
options must be compared critically.

1.3b Invited Competitions

In some cases there are good reasons for selecting several com-
petitors, in advance, who are then formally invited to submit

designs. The decision for an invited competition should be based
upon the complexity of the sponsor's design problem, the re-
quired expertise of the designer and the sponsor's commitment
to post-competition construction. Too often, invited competi-
tions are chosen because the sponsor believes that inviting only
the largest firms or the most famous designers assures the high-
est quality solutions. This is not necessarily the case.

Invited competitions should be considered when the intended
result is a specialized facility or major building complex, and
when a design commission will be awarded to the winner to
develop construction documents and administer the design pro-
cess. In these situations, however, there are other options to
consider. As an alternative, the sponsor might conduct an open
competition with program provisions that ensure post-competi-
tion work by designers with the requisite qualifications.

If an invited competition is appropriate, then the sponsor must
plan for, and seek, assistance in the initial selection process
during which many potential competitors are evaluated. This is a
separate jury procedure, and is just as important as the final jury
process which will ultimately select the best solution. An effec-
tive selection process should include the development of formal
evaluation criteria, identification of potential competitors, inves-
tigation of their qualifications, and the empaneling of a group of
experts to recommend a list of competitors to the sponsor.

There are potential pitfalls in any selection process. Invitations
based on a sponsor's cursory review of architectural journals, for
example, are not likely to be reliable. There is no guarantee that a
firm invited to compete will assign the project to the same per-
sonnel responsible for the work which caught the eye of the
sponsor. Another fundamental error, is to invite firms based
upon political, social or professional relationships — a frequent
occurrence in conventional practice which simply defeats the
purpose of a competition based on design merit. Published
photographs of buildings, personal contacts, or second-hand
opinions are no substitute for a thorough confidential evaluation
of designers and firms with appropriate credentials and refer-
ences.

When the initial selection process is resolved successfully, the
second competitive process begins. Usually, invited competi-
tions have only six to ten competitors. Unlike open competi-

tions, the names of the entrants are not necessarily kept secret,
except perhaps during the jurying process. More time and effort
are required to prepare detailed background information about
the design problem for the competitors, than in a traditional
open competition. The entrants are also expected to devote more
time to the competition. Therefore, competitors should be com-
pensated for some expenses incurred in developing and present-
ing their design solutions.

1.3c The Charette (Design Event)

The charette is a particular kind of invited competition. In a
charette, all the invited competitors are assembled in one loca-
tion and develop their solutions at the same time. This becomes a
major, public design event. There may be a large assembly hall or
convention center where six design teams work simultaneously
on their own ideas for a three-day period. Frequently, the spon-
sor and the general public watch the design process and jury
deliberations. The announcement of the winner(s) can be a cele-
brated event with reporters, photographers and community
leaders in attendance.

Charette competitions are especially valuable for the purpose of
attracting public attention and promoting ideas. But charettes
have some significant shortcomings. They may be less useful, for
example, when designers need longer working periods to re-
solve more complex design problems. Additionally, it may be
difficult to assemble all the needed professional expertise in one
place at a single time. Moreover, the physical and psychological
stress of a charette may be counter-productive.

1.3d The RFQ (Request-For-Qualifications)

In some competitions, eligibility is based on the results of a
request-for-qualifications or RFQ. In this type of competition,
the sponsor uses advertisements and limited mailings to search
for design firms with specific qualifications. Eligible and interest-
ed designers submit their qualifications for review. This ap-
proach often produces more competitors than a conventional
invited competition, yet fewer than an open competition. In the
RFQ, the sponsor need not identify specific firms to be invited;
still, there must be carefully estabhshed selection criteria.

Like the invited competition, the RFQ requires an initial selec-
tion process, but handled in a different manner. In an invited

competition, the sponsor customarily selects competitors based
on personal knowledge or research. The selection process in an
RFQ competition differs in that the sponsor need not have the
names or even a predetermined image of the designers to be
invited. The sponsor needs only a good starting point or list of
designers who should be asked to submit their qualifications.
Thus, an RFQ process could easily lead to twenty or more select-
ed competitors, a much higher number than for an invited com-
petition, but considerably fewer than in an open competition.

1.3e Two-Stage Competitions: The Designers and the Design

A one-stage competition implies a single competitive design cy-
cle. If there are subsequent phases of design activity, they are
usually accomplished by commissioning the first-place designer
without seeking further work from any other competitors. The
two-stage competition, on the other hand, is characterized by two
distinct, sequential, competitive design cycles, each of which is
judged separately.

The two stage competition is more expensive and time-consum-
ing, but is a far more exacting way of selecting both good designs
and good designers. It affords the sponsor the unique opportuni-
ty of exploring the breadth of design concepts in the first stage
and then evaluating, in-depth, the best options and the expertise
of the winning designers during the second stage. The second
stage is also useful for clarifying issues of physical implementa-
tion, as well as financial, legal, cultural and related technical
questions. Two stage competitions are rarely used for competi-
tions intended only to communicate new ideas or influence a
target audience.

The first phase of a two-stage competition is similar to an open,
anonymous competition in which the competitors generate pre-
liminary designs or basic concepts. The jury selects the best
submissions and designates the winners of the first stage as
finalists. Usually three to five solutions are selected, but there
could be as many as ten. In some cases, the first stage finalists
collect prize money and have the choice of continuing or drop-
ping out of the race. In others, the receipt of first stage cash
awards is contingent upon completing the second stage. In other
words, the first-stage prize money is viewed as partial payment
or a fee for the second stage design activity.

1.3f Two-Stage Competitions: The Second Phase

The second half of a two-stage competition is similar to an invit-
ed competition with fewer entrants working on an expanded or
more detailed design problem. The most significant difference
between the two stages, however, is the content of the design
problem. When the jury and the sponsor evaluate the first-stage
winners, the need for changes in the program almost always
emerges. This is an appropriate, highly desirable result. Such
new insights ought to be incorporated directly into the second
stage by modifying or broadening the design problem. Conse-
quently, it is usually wise to prescribe the second-stage design
issues only after the completion of the first-stage.

Other possible changes in the second stage involve the jurying
process. New jury members could be added or substituted in the
second stage if the evaluation criteria have been expanded or
changed or if different professional expertise is needed. Con-
cerns about the qualifications and expertise of the winning de-
signers can also be addressed in the second stage. The qualifica-
tions of the winning designers may be evaluated and, prior to the
second stage, they may be required to affiliate with other firms or
to form new teams that better fulfill the sponsor's needs.

Any procedures for modifications of the second-stage program,
jury or competitor qualifications must be clearly delineated at
the start of the first stage in the competition program. The basic
rules in a two-stage competition cannot be changed in the middle
of the competition, but it is legitimate to forewarn competitors in
the first-stage program that second-stage changes are likely and
permissible, within stated limits.

1.4 SELECTING THE REWARDS

Competition prizes and awards serve two major purposes. First,
they give winning designers both public recognition and finan-
cial recompense for their talent and effort. Second, the number,
type and size of the awards is a principal feature which attracts
competitors. This is especially the case when the awards include
contracts related to the post-competition use of the results.

1.4a Types of Prizes and Awards

The awards generally include cash prizes, design commissions
for further development of the winning solution, or contracts for

the actual construction and development of a building or prod-
uct. The rewards may also include professional and public recog-
nition through the publication and dissemination of the compe-
tition results. There may be a first, second, and third prize, and
honorable mentions. Additional categories, such as awards of merit
or certificates of recognition, are sometimes left to the discretion of
the jury. Chapters Three, Five and Seven contain separate sec-
tions on awards, and Figures 1.4, 5.6 and 7.1 illustrate critical
issues.

1.4b Awards and Post-Competition Activities

Typically, awards are related to post-competition activities
through the use of formal contracts. The critical decision is the
manner whereby the contract is procedurally linked to the award.
Some sponsors, for example, may fear an award which legally
obligates them to give a design commission to the first place
winner, because they may be encumbered with a solution that is
not financially feasible or is otherwise impractical. Conversely,
knowledgeable designers are often concerned that sponsors may
say they will construct the winning solution just to attract com-
petitors and then renege on their promise.

There are several ways in which awards can be linked to con-
tracts for post-competition activities (Figure 1.4). The sponsors
should select the type of award which most accurately reflects
their intent and commitment. Suppose a sponsor lacks final au-
thority for implementation but still has considerable influence
over the process. Rather than promising to build the winning
design, this sponsor could carefully define the procedure for
implementation and promise in good faith to take whatever steps
are possible to maximize the prospects for implementation. In
other words, sponsors should candidly describe resources and
implementation procedures, neither overstating nor understat-
ing their capabilities.

The statement of awards must specify any required negotiation
process between the sponsor and the winning designer(s). In
some cases the award includes a fee, paid to the winner for
further design work, contingent upon good-faith negotiation
with the sponsor. The award usually implies that if either the
sponsor or designer does not negotiate in good faith, they will
suffer direct or indirect penalties. In this way, the sponsor can
avoid truly unacceptable designs or designers, but not arbitrarily.

Figure 1.4 AWARDS AND SERVICE CONTRACTS

As part of, or in addition to, the principal award, a variety of services should be
considered by the sponsor. These might include: additional drawings or models for
promotional efforts; detailed design development; preparation of construction
documents, or; construction management services. There are different ways to link
such services to the awards depending upon the sponsor's commitment to
implementation. The options include:

1. Cash Prize Only

2. Cash Prize With
a Statement of
Intent

3. Cash Prize
With a
Recommendation

After the prize is awarded, the sponsor may use or disregard
any winning solutions.

The sponsor states an intent to implement the competition
results but is not legally obligated to do so. This is common
when a sponsor, such as a government agency does not have
the final authority to approve subsequent contracts as part of
competition prizes.

Sponsors are obligated to recommend implementation of a
winning solution to a higher authority. This higher authority
may, or may not be bound by the sponsor's recommendation.

4. Prize,

Recommendation
and a Contract

The sponsor must make recommendations to a higher
authority who, in turn, is obligated to award a design
contract to the winner. The winners may be ranked (e.g.,
first, second, third) or unranked (e.g., five finalists).

5. Prize and Right
to Negotiate

6. Prize,
Negotiation
Rights and a
Guaranteed
Payment

In addition to the cash prize, the first-place winner has the
first right to negotiate with the sponsor for the design
commission or contract.

The winner has the first right to negotiate for the design
commission. There is an additional guaranteed payment due
to the competitor should good-faith negotiations fail. This
payment acts as an incentive to the sponsor.

7. Prizes and a The sponsor has the obligation to award the cash prizes as
Sequence of stated, and initiate negotiations with the first-place winner.
Negotiation // these negotiations fail, the first-place winner receives an
Rights additional payment and the sponsor is obligated to open

negotiations with the second-place winner. The sequence may
continue to a third-place team.

8. Conditional V^hen contracts are part of the awards, the sponsor may
Contracts include special conditions to be met prior to the awarding of

the contract. The conditions might include licensure or
registration, demonstrated experience, the capacity to prepare
construction documents or to supervise construction. The
sponsor may also reserve the right to require winning
competitors to affiliate with design firms with predetermined
qualifications. Such conditions must be precisely and
prominently noted in the competition program.

These negotiation principles can be used in competitions which
assure the construction of buildings, and in any competition that
involves a contract for subsequent work.

,#» ii

i'~m

At the exhibition of the winning solutions, a TV cameraman records
the solutions for an evening news story on the local station. (New
American House Competition, Minneapolis College of Art and De-
sign.)

1.5 DEFINING THE PROBLEM: THE CHALLENGE

The first detailed discussion of the design issues frequently oc-
curs just after the sponsor and the adviser make decisions re-
garding the desired outcomes, competitor qualifications and
awards. At this point, the design problem is carefully analyzed
and the design issues are formulated as a basis for the official
design challenge — the formal statement of the problem that is
included in the public announcement of the competition.

Describing the problem with precision and accuracy at the begin-
ning of a competition is a difficult, almost presumptuous task.
Yet, a broad, thematic statement must be made at the outset to
give direction to the competition and guidance to the competi-
tors. Whenever possible, the challenge statement should empha-
size unique relationships between the sponsor's design problem
and the state-of-the-art in the design disciplines. This helps to
establish the professional significance of the competition and to
attract more attention from knowledgeable designers.

CHAPTER TWO

MANAGING A

COMPETITION, ROLES

AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Conducting a competition is like organizing a major event in the
performing arts — it requires creativity, skill, proper timing,
sufficient funding and an understanding of the audience. There
is no routine administrative formula, but there are specific roles
and responsibilities that must be considered including those of
the sponsor, adviser, jurors, support staff and advisory panels.
Figure 2.1 outlines some of these roles and associated activities.

2.1 THE SPONSOR

The sponsor's central role is similar to that of an executive pro-
ducer; the person who has the resources needed to conduct a
successful competition. The sponsor has the ethical responsibil-
ity to conduct a fair and equitable competition and an obligation
to follow through as promised on the results.

Each sponsor comes to a competition with different skills and
resources. While many responsibilities should be delegated to
the professional adviser, the sponsor remains accountable for the
judgments made by the adviser and others involved in the com-
petition process. A procedure must be established whereby the
recommendations of the adviser and the competition staff are
reviewed and formally approved, or disapproved.

2.1a Financial Responsibility

The sponsor's first responsibility is fiscal support and manage-
ment. Sponsors must provide the needed funds and see that
they are managed efficiently. Sponsors should establish a de-

Figure 2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES BY
TYPE OF ACTIVITY

ACTIVITY:

PERSONNEL:

Sponsor

Adviser

Management
Decisions

Hires adviser, delegates
authority and
responsibilities to others

Administers and monitors
all critical tasks

Financial and
Budgetary Decisions

Makes final decisions and
is financially accountable

Monitors payments of cash
prizes

Competition Planning
and Scheduling

Reviews and approves final
decisions

Develops plan and
schedule; enforces all stated
deadlines

Program Document
Preparation

Provides basic goals;
reviews and approves drafts
and final documents

Drafts design challenge,
problem statements, and all
program documents

Communications with
Competitors

Reviews and approves
correspondence and
documents (or delegates
this authority to adviser)

Drafts all correspondence
and documents

Jury Deliberations

May observe

Examines all entries for
compliance; assists the
jurors

Post-Competition
Activities

Develops plans and makes
final decisions

Assists sponsor in
negotiations and
preparation of reports

FIGURE 2.1 Continued

PERSONNEL (Continued):

Staff

Advisory Panel

Jury

Daily administration

No responsibility

Daily disbursements and
recordkeeping

May assist in fund-raising
events

No responsibility

Advises on the schedule
and provides assistance

No responsibility

Reviews documents;
provides technical
assistance and supporting
information

Reviews drafts and makes
recommendations

Reviews and approves
documents, makes
recommendations

Provides technical
assistance and additional
data

May review some key
documents

Reviews and approves
documents, makes
recommendations

Assists in the display of
submissions

No responsibility

Final selection and
designation of prizes and
awards

Provides assistance and
support

Reviews results; may assist
in implementation of
results

Develops report (usually
with assistance of the
adviser)

tailed budget of the projected costs and revenues. Financial ar-
rangements for a competition may include escrow accounts for
prize money, separate accounts for revenues from registration
fees, and contingency funds for unpredictable or last minute
changes. While accountants and business managers can provide
useful advice, the sponsor has the ultimate responsibility.

Mayor George Latimer, sponsor of the Saint Paul Cityscape Competi-
tion, is briefed by the adviser regarding the winning solutions prior to
the public announcement and press conference.

The goal for the preliminary budget is to establish a balance
between the various components of the competition including
prize money, professional fees, advertising costs, catalogues and
public relations.

It does little good to have large prizes but insufficient advertising
to attract competitors. There is no common formula for the allo-
cation of funds to each activity — the sponsor's objective is to
establish the right balance. This issue is elaborated in Chapter
Three, and Figure 3.1 illustrates sample budgets.

2.1b Assembling the Team

The second major responsibility is assembling a good manage-
ment team. Selecting the right team is as critical as choosing the

right competition outcomes and designer qualifications. The
sponsor ultimately controls the selection of the professional ad-
viser, jurors, advisory panel members, and the competition staff.
This process usually begins with the hiring of a professional
adviser to whom the sponsor entrusts most subsequent staffing
arrangements and administrative decisions.

2.1c Selecting an Adviser

Ordinarily, the best time to select an adviser is immediately after
preliminary decisions have been made, but before any final bud-
getary or legal commitments are established. This does not pre-
clude seeking consulting services even earlier to assist in pre-
liminary decisions.

The point is that the adviser should be hired at the right mo-
ment — when the sponsor has a clear idea of a desired outcome,
but is not yet wedded to a specific competition process or struc-
ture. The sponsor should select a professional adviser suited to
the structure and intent of the competition. Different expertise is
required, for example, in a competition for design concepts as
opposed to one for property development.

The scope of services may also vary (Figure 2.2). One adviser
may provide services as a facilities programmer while another
does not. The sponsor may hire a competition consultant solely
to prepare a plan and then assist the sponsor in hiring another
adviser or project director who will produce the competition
documents and manage the process. A thorough discussion of
the adviser's responsibilities follows in this Chapter.

Selection of an adviser, like other professional personnel, is a
two-step process, beginning with the identification of potential
candidates and concluding with interviews and a final choice.
Initial inquiries will be required to develop a list of candidates.
Some organizations, such as the National Endowment for the
Arts and other national or local design associations may have
several references. However, the richest source of names for
potential advisers can be found in other sponsors of ongoing or
recently completed competitions who had to conduct their own
search for an adviser. Sponsors of current or recent competitions
can be found by reviewing design journals and newsletters for
reports, announcements or advertisements about competitions.
These published statements identify the sponsor and may in-
clude the name of the adviser. Local design schools and some
major design firms may also have this information.

Figure 2.2

THE ADVISER'S SERVICES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES

TASK:

LEVEL OF

DESCRIPTION

RESPONSIBILITY:

OF SERVICE:

1. Preliminary

One to three days of preliminary planning

Planning

prior to public announcements or
invitations to compete.

2. Administration i^

Developing initial competition schedule.

Preparing/reviewing the competition
budget and awards.

Assigning/supervising staff.

3. Preparation of u^\^

Drafting the competition program.

Documents

\^\^

Drafting correspondence between the
sponsor and competitors (e.g., questions

and answers).

Assembling supplementary information.

Drafting announcements or invitations.

Preparing the jury report.

Preparing graphic designs for documents
(e.g., poster, program or catalogue).

4. Mailing and

Preparing mailing lists.

Distribution

Placing advertisements in journals and
other publications.

Distributing announcements, invitations,
programs, questions and answers and post
competition publications.

5. Jury

Planning for the size and composition of

Membership

the jury.

Reviewing potential jurors.

Developing juror's contracts including the
scope of services, schedule and other
obligations.

Communicating necessary information.

Key: v^\^ Primary responsibilities should be delegated to the adviser.

1^ Secondary responsibilities normally involve the adviser and are shared with

others.
O Optional responsibilities may be delegated to, or shared by the adviser
depending upon the other resources of the sponsor.

Figure 2.2 Continued

TASK:

LEVEL OF

DESCRIPTION

RESPONSIBILITY:

OF SERVICE:

6. Selection of

)^i^

Developing procedures and selection

Competitors:

criteria for potential competitors.

(for invited
competitions
and RFQ's )

Developing a list of potential competitors.

Notifying potential competitors and

arranging interviews.

]/>

Evaluating credentials.

Making final recommendations.

7. Advisory

Planning the size and composition of the

Panel

panel.

Developing tasks and activities.

Conducting meetings and briefings.

8. Preparation

*^l^

Examining all submissions for compliance

for Jurying

to all stated requirements.

Process

*>/>

Disqualifying ineligible submissions.

*^l>

Preparing the display of submissions.

Monitoring jurying procedures.

Instructing the jury prior to evaluation

and selection procedures.

9. Awards and

Notifying the winners.

Announce-

Developing press releases.

Arranging for public announcements and
press conferences.

10. Post-

1^1^

Briefing the sponsor prior to public

Competition

announcements.

Activities

Communicating results to all registrants.

Monitoring negotiations between the
sponsor and the winners.

Preparing catalogues and publications.

Disseminating the results of competition.

Returning non-winning submissions.

Preparing exhibitions.

Preparing an archive.

Each candidate's experience, qualifications and references
should be evaluated in relation to the sponsor's needs, similar to
a conventional personnel selection process. It is also important
to ask the candidates to indicate how they would approach the
particular problems and opportunities of the proposed competi-
tion. An interview may also include a discussion of fees. Typical-
ly an adviser's fee is equivalent to the rates charged by principals
in design firms or professional consultants in the design disci-
plines. The adviser's fee will vary according to the scope of
services and the adviser's experience. Sometimes a flat fee is
negotiated, and in other cases, portions of fees are contingent on
other factors such as the number of competition registrations.

2. Id Professional and Ethical Conduct

The sponsor has a major responsibility to the competitors and
the profession at large. A competition is a form of agreement
between the sponsor and a group of initially unknown design-
ers. All designers depend upon the sponsor to maintain ethical
standards throughout the competition process.

It is, for example, unethical for the sponsor to renege on a stated
promise to publish or exhibit competition results. Similarly, the
competitors rely on the sponsor to empower the adviser to moni-
tor the jury and prohibit awards to solutions which violate the
rules. The sponsor must describe the design problem clearly and
candidly so that there are no obscured issues which are evident
to only a few competitors who thereby gain an unfair advantage.
The sponsor must also state precisely how the submissions will
be used after the jurying, and then adhere to that plan.

2.2 THE PROFESSIONAL ADVISER:
MANAGER, COACH AND REFEREE

The adviser has a mixed role requiring knowledge of design,
administrative and analytic skills, diplomacy and judicial au-
thority. The adviser shepherds the competition from beginning
to end, and each step in the process requires different talents.
The role of the adviser should vary, of course, according to both
the characteristics of each competition and the sponsor's re-
sources.

Design competitions are analogous, in some ways, to athletic
competitions. This analogy can be particularly useful in describ-

ing the tasks of the professional adviser who, at different times,
may assume a role similar to the general manager of a team, the
coach or a referee.

2.2a The General Manager: Executive Decisions

As the general manager of the sponsor's team, the adviser ad-
ministers activities aimed at achieving the sponsor's goals. These
include reviewing contracts, ensuring that deadlines are met,
overseeing registration, recording and safeguarding design pro-
posals, arranging for facilities for the jurying process and super-
vising support staff.

In some competitions, many routine administrative tasks are
delegated to a separate project director rather than to the adviser.
This division of roles between a project director and an adviser is
appropriate when the competition is large and complex, or when
the sponsor's staff includes a fully qualified manager. It is un-
wise, however, to use a project director from among the spon-
sor's staff, without the necessary qualifications just because it
seems less expensive or an expedient way to ensure loyalty.

As the general manager the adviser should plan for the success-
ful use of the competition results. The adviser should also ensure
that the sponsor's intent is reflected accurately in the competi-
tion program, especially in the definition of both the design
problem and the criteria that the jury is instructed to use in
selecting a winner.

Further, as general manager the adviser should review all com-
petition documents. Authority for reviewing documents, how-
ever, is substantially different from responsibility as the principal
author. Whether the adviser has the added responsibility to draft
competition documents depends on whether or not the services
described in the following section are included in the contract.

2.2b The Coach: Sponsor-Competitor Communications

Another principal role of the adviser is that of head coach —
someone who understands the competition process and can de-
velop the game plan or strategy to achieve the sponsor's goals. To
do this the adviser drafts a program statement which structures
and presents the design issues so that competitors can clearly
understand the problems the sponsor wants to solve. This initial
programming task is, in fact, the first step of the design process.

It is similar to a coach instructing a group of talented contestants
so that all of them can perform to their highest level. Develop-
ment of the program statement is discussed fully in Chapter
Five.

When drafting the competition documents, the adviser is re-
sponsible for expressing the sponsor's aspirations while simulta-
neously representing the interests of the competitors. Unlike a
conventional design process, competitions have little or no
spontaneous dialogue between client and designer, but have
instead a highly structured communication process.

Prior to the beginning of the jury deliberations the adviser makes a
final review of the submissions for the New American House Competi-
tion, Minneapolis College of Art and Design.

As head coach, the adviser must not only define and communi-
cate a program but also must respond effectively to new prob-
lems and events. As the competition unfolds, there are numer-
ous judgments required to keep it on track, such as answering
the questions submitted by the competitors, facilitating jury de-
liberations, generating favorable press coverage, and ensuring
that all deadlines are met. The adviser should continually evalu-
ate and modify the game plan or competition strategy to keep the
process running smoothly and take advantage of new opportuni-
ties. This may entail resolving conflicts among members of an
advisory panel, modifying the initial program or helping the
sponsor and winner negotiate a successful post-competition
plan for implementation.

2.2c The Referee: Validating the Competition

Perhaps the most difficuh role for an adviser is that of referee.
Without someone to enforce the rules, there is no way to ensure
that a competition is fair and equitable. A trial without a judge
who interprets the law and ensures due process has no integrity.
A ball game without referees and umpires would be chaos. The
conduct of the sponsor, jury, and competitors must be constantly
monitored to guarantee a fair, professional contest. This role can
be filled only by an impartial third party, normally the profes-
sional adviser.

As referee, the adviser's actions may protect one party in a
competition while displeasing another. This can create paradox-
ical situations: while an agent and subordinate of the sponsor,
the adviser must oversee the sponsor's conduct (as well as that of
the jurors and competitors). The adviser should protect the com-
petitors by ensuring that the sponsor meets all stated commit-
ments, especially in regard to the distribution of prizes and
awards. In addition, the adviser protects both the sponsor and
competitors by disqualifying any submissions which violate the
rules.

The adviser's role as referee becomes most visible near the end of
the competition process when the jury begins its work. When the
competition starts the adviser looks more like a manager or
coach rather than a referee, dealing principally with design is-
sues and the overall organization of the competition rather than
the enforcement of the rules. In practice, however, all roles and
responsibilities are present throughout the competition.

2.2d The Adviser's Contract

The contract between the sponsor and adviser must specify the
scope of services which fit the circumstances of the competition.
In general, the adviser's services could be summarized as fol-
lows: as a referee the adviser is essential; for preparing program
documents an adviser is highly recommended; and for general
management the need for an adviser is directly related to the
sponsor's existing staff resources. The contract between the ad-
viser and sponsor should state the responsibilities and authority
of both parties for each specific activity and event (Figure 2.2).

Perhaps the most underrated or least understood service is the
development of program documents. A slight error in the rules.

the problem statement, or the supporting information can lead
to unpredictable and undesirable results. Unfortunately, some
sponsors assume that this task requires no special expertise and
that it can be accomplished by any competent staff member. This
is like saying, "Anyone can be a baseball pitcher; all he has to do
is throw the ball across home plate."

2.3 THE COMPETITION STAFF

Assembling the right staff is more than a routine task. Decisions
should focus on who will be responsible for each job, whether
the requisite staff will be provided in-house or acquired external-
ly and who will have the authority to oversee their work. Figure
2.3 lists typical staff assignments.

A design competition may require the services of a graphic de-
signer, press agent, facilities manager, lawyer, accountant, pho-
tographer, architect and researcher. The right person must be
selected for each job. For example, using a student as a graphic
designer instead of a professional may save a few dollars at first,
but create problems later if the graphic quality of the documents
does not attract the desired competitors.

Personnel are also required for typing, document production,
advertising, mailing and delivery, and record-keeping. A com-
mon practice is to assign the sponsor's in-house staff to as many
tasks as possible. This too, is usually done to reduce costs. Inter-
nal staff assignments may be appropriate, but it is important not
to miscalculate the staff's abilities to perform the task and meet
deadlines. In-house staff may be faced with unfamiliar tasks, a
different organizational setting and new lines of authority. Inter-
nal staff assignments should be made only if there is complete
confidence that the tasks will be completed correctly and on
schedule — there is rarely time to repeat procedures.

Another common practice to obtain staff support and reduce
costs is to seek in-kind contributions, or donations of service.
Some printers, for example, may be willing to donate services in
return for acknowledgement and the resulting recognition. In
other situations, organizations wishing to be credited as associate
sponsors or supporters of a competition may be willing to assign
their staff to some specific task or event. Here too, potential cost
savings must be balanced against the risk that the tasks will not
be performed satisfactorily or on schedule.

Figure 2.3 STAFF ASSIGNMENTS FOR
COMPETITIONS

TYPE OF
SERVICES:

SUBJECT OF ASSIGNMENT:

Planning and Preparation
Development of

Documents

Jury Post-

Deliberations Competition
Activity

A. SPECIALIZED
SERVICES

1. Graphic Design

)^\/'Pritnary

i^i^Primary

2. Photography

\^Secondary

Optional

i^t^Primary

3. Promotion and
Advertising

t^Secondaty

Optional

t^i/" Primary

4. Press and

Media Relations

i^Secondary

{^Secondary

5. Legal Counsel

i^Secondary

6. Market Analysis/
Feasibility Studies

Optional

7. Facilities

Programming

Optional

B. GENERAL
SERVICES

1. Clerical/Secretarial

t^Secondary

i^Secondary

Optional

i^Secondary

2. Printing/Copying

t^i/'Primary

Optional

i^Secondary

3. Record-Keeping

i^t^Primary

Optional

i^Secondary

4. Mailing/Document
Distribution

Optional

5. Receipt, Storage
and Display
of Submissions

i^)/'Primary

t^Secondary

6. Facilities

Arrangements

t^i^Primary

Optional

7. Travel and Lodging
Arrangements

i^i^Primary

8. Disbursement of
Funds/Accounting

\^Secondary

t^Secondary

Optional

y^y^Primary

Notes: Primary and secondary indicate the relative importance of the task.

The importance of optional assignments depends upon the nature of the competition.
NA = not applicable

2.4 ADVISORY PANELS

In most competitions there are outside interest groups, profes-
sional experts and other parties who feel they should be involved
in the competition process. A direct, effective response is to ask
each of these parties or their representatives to become members
of an advisory panel.

A list should be prepared identifying potential panel members
whose expertise or organizational affiliation fit the intended
needs and goals of the competition. It is also important to select
members who can work well together and who are likely to be
active participants.

The decision to form an advisory panel should be based on the
sponsor's needs to garner support for the competition, resolve
conflicts and receive technical assistance. The panel may be
asked to make recommendations concerning design goals and
problems, the content and distribution of competition docu-
ments, public relations and links to local interest groups (Figure
2.4). The formation of a panel should be discussed with the
adviser and a decision to convene a panel should be made well
before the program is finalized or the jurors are selected.

Any advisory panel must be a legitimate part of the decision-
making process and it should be kept to a workable size. Most
sponsors and advisers are familiar with committee work and
understand this issue. A five to seven person panel is likely to be
the optimum size. A larger group may prove to be workable if it
can operate in sub-committees of three to five people, with each
sub-committee oriented toward a specific task.

The panel's time should be used wisely. If members feel that
their time is wasted or their opinions are being ignored, the
effort can become counter-productive. The sponsor and adviser
should not hesitate to call on panel members privately to work on
vexing or complex questions — they will feel they are making
more of a contribution and the overall competition process will
be improved.

2.4a Conflict Resolution

Competitions frequently affect groups or individuals with con-
flicting objectives. Advisory panels provide an opportunity to
join such divergent interests into a common effort. In a competi-
tion for the design of a public building, for example, interested

Figure 2.4 TASKS FOR ADVISORY PANELS

TYPE OF TASK:

TYPE OF COMPETITION GOAL;

Design
Commission

Promotion

and

Education

Resource
Development

Design-Build
or Design-
Development

A. CONFLICT
RESOLUTION

1. Consensus
Formation

1^ Recommended

Optional

2. Representation of
Interest Groups

i^ Recommended

i^Recommended

1^ Recommended

Optional

3. Intergovernmental
Relations

i^ Recommended

Optional

i^ Recommended

4. Public/Private
Sector Relations

1^ Recommended

Optional

i/' Recommended

i^Recommended

5. Institutional
Cooperation

i^ Recommended

Optional

i^Recommended

Optional

B. TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE

1. Design

Recommended

Optional

i^t^Highly

Recommended

2. Construction

i^ Recommended

i^t^Highly

Recommended

3. Property

Development

Optional

t^i^ Highly

Recommended

4. Engineering

1^ Recommended

t^i^ Highly

Recommended

5. Economics

Optional

t^i^Highly

Recommended

C. IMPLEMENTATION
OF RESULTS

1. Fund Raising

Optional

i^i^Highly

Recommended

Optional

2. Publicity and
Public Support

i^ Recommended

i^ Recommended y^t^ Highly

Recommended

^^Recommended

Note: Optional tasks depend upon the specific nature of the competition.
NA = not applicable

parties may include those who will eventually occupy the build-
ing, local neighborhood associations, nearby property owners
and community leaders. A competition demonstrating the use of
a new technology or product may have an equally broad array of
interested parties. The sponsor stands at the center of such
interests and should assume a leadership role.

While the formation of an advisory group does not necessarily
resolve all conflicts, it can provide the basis for reaching a con-
sensus. Successful advisory panels can turn potentially adver-
sarial relationships into alliances for action. In some instances,
early discussions with these parties may even lead to the sharing
of competition costs and responsibilities. In any case, the com-
munity of interests that surround a competition should be recog-
nized formally through the proper composition of an advisory
panel.

2.4b Technical Expertise

In addition to resolving conflicts and encouraging consensus, an
advisory panel can be a conduit for obtaining valuable technical
and professional expertise. There may be a specific skill which
may help the adviser to define the design problem. In addition to
local design or engineering experts, there may be other individ-
uals who can provide historical knowledge, graphic skills, or
financial or legal expertise.

Technical experts may not have a direct stake in the competition
outcome, but they may assist either as a matter of civic pride or in
return for public acknowledgement and recognition. Such per-
sons frequently have busy schedules and numerous commit-
ments, so it is important to assure them that their time and
knowledge will be used efficiently and judiciously.

2.4c Resource Development

Members of the advisory panel may also serve as the core of a
network of people and organizations which can provide support
and resources. A panel member might help speed the process of
getting necessary background data from a local government
agency. Another might help gain support for the competition
from professional design associations. Others may help promote
press coverage of the competition as an important public event.

Panel members can be invaluable leaders in post-competition
activities. They may assist in securing financing for construction
or in developing resources for a traveling exhibition. Requests
for such post-competition assistance should be made at the start
of the competition. In this way, panel members will feel that
their ideas are an integral part of the decision-making process
(not an afterthought) and are therefore more likely to be active
participants.

2.4d The Panel's Authority

The authority of the advisory panel should be stated clearly so
that misinterpretations and ill-will do not arise. The advisory
panel usually is chaired by the professional adviser and the
panel's authority is limited to making recommendations. Infor-
mally it should be understood that the panel members will sup-
port the competition publicly in exchange for serious consider-
ation of their viewpoints.

2.5 THE JURY

The competition jury should have the sole responsibility of eval-
uating the eligible submissions, and selecting and ranking the
best solutions to the problem. A second role of the jury is to
attract, by their collective reputation, the most qualified and
talented competitors. The credentials and experience of each
juror should reflect both of these objectives. Most good competi-
tors evaluate the information given about the jurors' expertise,
published works, awards and professional contributions.

The exact impact of a juror's reputation, however, is difficult to
assess. Some jurors may not be well-known to the public but may
be well-respected within the profession and thereby will tend to
attract highly qualified entrants. In other instances, the collective
reputation of the jurors may seem biased toward a singular point
of view and thus may discourage some good designers from
entering the competition.

There is a special case worth noting called the blind jury. With
this approach, the competitors are not informed as to the names
of the jurors (even though competitors may be given some gener-
al background information about each juror). A blind jury is
used seldomly, however, because the presentation of the jurors'
names and credentials is one of the most effective ways to ex-
press the sponsor's intent and to attract competitors.

2.5a Evaluating and Selecting Potential Jurors

Developing the most effective combination of jurors is a delicate
task requiring experience, research and diplomacy. It is particu-
larly important to evaluate a juror's ability to work with others.
Some potential jurors are designers who have reputations for
being eccentric or autocratic, although such reputations are often
ill-founded or overstated. On the other hand, jurors who appear
reasonable in initial conversations may turn out to be non-pro-
ductive during the jurying process. Also, some potential jurors
may be reluctant or unwilling to serve with other jurors who are
not design professionals.

Accordingly, all potential jurors should be evaluated through a
series of confidential contacts by the adviser to determine if they
are appropriate for the task. Subsequent interviews with poten-
tial jurors usually concern the nature of the design problem, fees,
the dates of the jurying process, and the responsibilities of the
jurors. The person contacting the jurors should be fully prepared
to discuss all of these issues and answer any questions directly.
Potential jurors, however, should not be told the names of the
other jury candidates unless these candidates have agreed to
serve as jurors.

Fees for jurors are comparable to the rates for principals or part-
ners in major firms. The fee should be fair recompense for the
time and expertise the jurors are expected to provide. Occasion-
ally sponsor representatives and local non-professional jurors
are asked to serve without a fee.

The jurors must review competition documents and sign a con-
tractual agreement stating that they will abide by all the compe-
tition's rules. The contract should specify the authority, services
and responsibilities of the jurors (Figure 2.5). Typically, jurors are
given the sole authority to designate the winners. There are,
however, qualifications of this authority regarding the adviser's
disqualification of entries and the jury's discretion in modifying
the number and types of prizes. These issues are elaborated in
Chapters Five and Six.

2.5b Jury Composition

The majority of jurors often are well-known and respected pro-
fessional designers. Frequently, the jury is composed of design-
ers from different, but complementary disciplines or areas of
expertise. Some jurors are design critics, writers, or educators —

persons who understand design but are not necessarily practi-
tioners. Non-designers should not, however, serve on a jury
unless they have the skills required to comprehend fully the
presentations that are submitted.

Juries most often have five to seven members. Initially, sponsors
may wish to include more jurors in order to represent more
viewpoints and to attract more competitors. A jury with too
many conflicting viewpoints can, however, be unproductive.
Similarly, a jury with too few viewpoints can become slanted
toward an idiosyncratic decision.

In one of two display rooms, jurors James Wines, James Bellus, Hideo
Sasaki and Richard Whitaker, discuss evaluative criteria and initial
selections during a planned break in the deliberations at the Saint Paul
Cityscape Competition.

The most frequent type of non-design professional to serve on a
jury is the sponsor's representative. Such persons usually have
thorough knowledge of the programmatic requirements and the
sponsor's needs. Sometimes, the sponsor's representative is
designated as a non-voting member of the jury. Occasionally,
such persons inadvertently provide critical information which
was not included in the program documents. The jury must not
be allowed to consider this information in making their judg-
ments — it is fundamentally unfair to the competitors. The best
safeguard against this dilemma is to make sure that all the jurors,
including any sponsor representatives, appreciate the rules and
the importance of an equitable competition.

Figure 2.5 JURORS' SERVICES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES

1. General The agreement between the sponsor and the jurors

Agreement should include a statement signed by each juror

attesting to the fact that he or she:

a. has read, reviewed and approved the contents of the
program

b. agrees to be bound by the competition rules

c. agrees to evaluate the submissions based upon the
evaluative criteria stated in the program.

d. agrees to designate winning solutions as described in the
program.

2. Program
Approval

The final program documents should be sent to the
individual jurors for their signed approval prior to
distribution of the documents to the competitors. This
should be noted in the program.

3. Fee Structure When possible the juror's fee should be structured

to include a separate payment for the formal review
and approval of the competition program and, if
appropriate, review of the competitors' questions and
the answers.

4. Authority

The contract with the jurors should carefully describe
the relative authority of the jury, adviser and sponsor,
regarding:

a. the selection and designation of winners (the jury's
authority)

b. the disqualification of entries (the adviser's authority)

c. the announcement of the results (the sponsor's
authority).

Figure 2.5 Continued

5. Jury Report Jurors should be obligated to assist in drafting a final

jury report. The jurors' contract may require:

a. the review and approval of drafts, as prepared by the jury
chair, other jurors, the adviser or the sponsor

b. the drafting of comments regarding the winning
submissions and any others that they consider noteworthy

c. timely submission of comments and materials for the
report

d. separate payment for this service.

6. Jury Chairperson

Designation of a jury chairperson, or procedures for
selecting a chairperson should be included in the
jurors' agreement. The options are:

a. Chairperson as Manager:

The chairperson manages and facilitates the jurying
process, but has no added authority in selecting winners.
The juror's agreement should describe the process by
which the chairperson will be selected: designated
beforehand by the sponsor or adivser, or elected by the
jurors.

b. Chairperson as Philosophical Leader:

The sponsor or the adviser selects a chairperson prior to
the jurying process. In this situation the chairperson may
have additional authority in selecting winners. This
authority may be stated in terms of additional votes, or
veto power granted to the chairperson by the sponsor.

c. Additional Fee:

If additional responsibility or authority is granted to the
chairperson beforehand by the sponsor, the agreement
should contain additional payment for this service.

Other non-designers who serve as jurors include experts with
knowledge of political, social, financial, historical or cultural
matters. A variety of expert jurors from different professional
disciplines is particularly suited to design-build or design-devel-
op competitions where legal and economic judgments are of
equal, or greater, importance than design judgments.

Another type of juror is a local design professional who is well
respected, but who may not have a national reputation. Such
jurors may have knowledge of relevant, specific circumstances
which are unknown to jurors from outside the community. It is
important for all jurors to understand that such local expertise is
appropriate in evaluating how well the solutions fit the local
context. It is unfair and improper, however, if such knowledge is
used as a basis for disregarding or modifying the stated pro-
gram. Nevertheless, choosing local, qualified jurors is appropri-
ate, especially in site-specific competitions involving complex
physical, technical, political or cultural problems.

2.5c Jury Leadership

Some juries have a leader — a jury chair, whose role and authority
depends upon the specific competition. In most instances, the
chair only facilitates the jurying process, making certain that
correct, efficient procedures are followed. The chair may direct
the jury when the process seems stalled or deadlocked, and in
general, should foster a congenial atmosphere where serious
debate is encouraged and where all jurors' comments are consid-
ered.

In other, less frequent cases, the role of the jury chair is used to
influence the final outcome or product of the jury. The chair of
this jury is specifically chosen as a guiding light — a philosophical
leader who imprints his or her philosophy on the competition
results. This type of jury leader is appropriate when strong state-
ments of personal taste and design philosophy are desirable.
Empowering one person to dominate a jury is equivalent in
many ways to letting that person be the actual designer. Conse-
quently such persons should be interviewed and selected with
the same scrutiny as would be the designer for the project.

CHAPTER THREE

ALLOCATING
TIME AND MONEY

The effective distribution of time and money is critical to the
success of the competition process. While Chapter Two dis-
cussed professional resources, this chapter deals with resources
directly, focusing on the budget and the schedule.

3.1 THE BUDGET

The cost of a competition depends on several variables: the num-
ber and amount of cash prizes, the number and type of the
documents to be printed, the fees for the jurors and adviser, and
general staff support. A large two-stage competition with com-
plex documents and prizes will clearly cost more than a small
competition with one cash prize. Figure 3.1 illustrates the pat-
terns of costs for different kinds of competitions.

3.1a Trade-offs

Numerous trade-offs have to be made in the budgeting process.
Consider a situation where a sponsor must choose between in-
creasing the cash prizes to attract more competitors or increasing
funds to produce a high quality program. Either choice implies a
significant risk. If the sponsor does not increase the cash prizes,
not enough good solutions may be submitted. If the sponsor
reduces the funds for the development of the competition pro-
gram, the winning designs may not be as useful.

There is no single formula for the successful allocation of compe-
tition funds. Prize money, professional management, advertis-
ing, jury selection, program development, post-competition ac-

Figure 3.1 SAMPLE BUDGETS, 1983-1985 (in $1,000)

General Statistics
(Percentage & Dollars)

Percent^

Mean Range^
High

Low

Total Costs

100%

111 214

Prizes and Awards

36%

40 98

Professional Fees and
Staff Costs
Subtotal

33%

37 69

Jurors

Professional adviser
Project director
Other

11%

14%

Supplies and Expenses
Subtotal

21%

Printing, mailing, advertising

11%

Facilities, equipment

Travel and lodging

Other

Post-Competition Expenses
Subtotal

Catalogues, publications
Exhibits

4%
2%

15
15

0
0

Indirect Costs

Notes:

' Discrepancies in totals and subtotals are due to rounding.

^ Totals and subtotals in the columns marked "high" and "low" are based on the numbers in
each row — they do not reflect the totals or subtotals in the column.
Key: na = not applicable or no cost

Inc = Included in another category, or donated/in-kind service with no stated dollar
equivalent

Figure 3.1 Continued

open Competitions:
Promotion & Education

Open Competitions:
Commissions or Contracts

Urban Housing
Landmark Concept

Urban
Square

Graphic
Design

Architec- Housing
tural Demon-
School stration

History
Museum

Parking
Facility

164 88

117 87

23 14

43 25

38 34

44 40

Inc

15
8

5
3

na
na

5
3

4
3

na
na

20
5

Inc

Figure 3.1 Continued

RFQ
Competitions

Charette
(Design event)

College
Facility

Arts
Facility

Spaces foi
Arts

' Performing
Arts Center

Museum
Facility

Total Costs

214

Prizes and Awards

Professional Fees and
Staff Costs
Subtotal

Jurors

Professional adviser
Project director
Other

Supplies and Expenses
Subtotal

Inc

Printing, mailing, advertising

Inc

Facilities, equipment

Inc

Travel and lodging

Other

Post-Competition Expenses
Subtotal

Inc

Catalogues, publications
Exhibits

rm
na

Inc
Inc

na
na

Indirect Costs

Inc

Key: na = not applicable or no cost

Inc = Included in another category, or donated/in-kind service with no stated dollar
equivalent

Figure 3.1 Continued

Two-Stage Competitions
(with first stage open)

Invited Competitions
(one and two stage)

Urban
Park Redevel-
opment

Civic
Center

College Arts
Facility

Cultural Arts
Facility

Museum
of Art

Aquarium

199

170

111

200

110

24
4

17
0

Inc

14
3
2
3

34^

Inc

15
na

na
na

na
15

na
na

Inc

tivities are all essential. Cutting one budget category because it
initially seems less significant may lead to a flawed competition
process.

It is especially important not to reduce the budget for post-
competition activities in favor of tasks that appear more critical
during the earlier stages of the process. The post-competition
budget will make the difference between using the results suc-
cessfully or merely announcing the winners.

Some costs may be reduced by accepting donations of service in
return for public recognition. Printing firms, for example, may
donate some staff time or materials for preparing documents. A
college or other cultural institution might donate the use of its
facility for the jury deliberations. General staff costs may also be
reduced when the sponsor's staff is available to perform some
functions. Cost cutting techniques are effective only if they do
not jeopardize the effectiveness and fairness of the competi-
tion.

3.1b Revenues

Revenues from the entry or registration fees can be significant,
especially in large national competitions where such revenues
can cover five to twenty percent of the total cost. Fees should not
be so high, however, that they discourage designers from enter-
ing the competition or place an unfair economic burden on en-
trants who must dedicate considerable time and money to pre-
paring their submissions.

Revenues from registration fees increase in direct proportion to
some types of expenses such as printing, mailing and staff ser-
vices. Consequently, two types of costs should be considered
when setting these fees — fixed and variable costs. Drafting the
program documents is, for instance, a fixed cost. Mailing these
documents is a variable cost proportionate to the size of the
initial audience for the announcement and the number of regis-
trations and entrants. As the number of registrations and en-
trants increases, there should be a planned, corresponding in-
crease in revenues set aside to cover the additional variable costs.
Unfortunately, there is no way to predict the number of registra-
tions accurately. It depends on several factors including the size
and type of prizes, eligibility restrictions, the design problem
and the way the competition is announced and advertised.

Some open competitions have a single registration fee to pur-
chase both the program documents and the right to submit an
entry for jurying. An ahernative method is to spUt the registra-
tion into two payments so that the first purchases the program
document and the second gives the competitor the right to sub-
mit a solution. This latter procedure may be more equitable.
Also, the split payment makes it easier to set both fees propor-
tional to corresponding costs for the production of documents
and administrative expenses.

3.1c Cash Prizes and Long-Term Costs

Cash prizes are a significant portion of the budget, but they are
not the last disbursement in the competition process. Prizes and
awards are followed by post-competition activities such as print-
ing a book, granting a design commission or constructing a
building.

The important point is that cash prizes may be only the initial
payment in a more substantial long-term investment. The award
of a design commission may lead to much larger capital construc-
tion costs. In design-build competitions, long-term costs may
involve contractual agreements to sell or buy land or manage
property. These long-term costs (and benefits) should be bal-
anced against the short-term investment in cash prizes.

3. Id Budget Preparation

A competition budget is developed in several iterations, begin-
ning with a preliminary budget prepared by the sponsor. This
tentative budget is generally sufficient to make the first budget-
ary allocations to hire a professional adviser or project director.
The adviser or director can then prepare a detailed budget for the
approval of the sponsor.

Even after a final budget is approved, there may be subsequent
modifications, requiring further review and approval. For exam-
ple, jurors' fees and travel expenses cannot be accurately estimat-
ed until the competition is well underway. The budget for pub-
lishing or exhibiting the submissions cannot be estimated
accurately until after the jurying is concluded. The operating
budget should be managed flexibly with some leeway for these
unpredictable expenses.

3.2 THE SCHEDULE

The development of a schedule or work program is integral to the
planning process. The schedule, like the budget, requires trade-
offs. A competition for a complex building will require substan-
tial time to research and establish functional requirements. Some
competitions require more time to develop exhibits and cata-
logues; others require more time to find and screen qualified
competitors.

Competition schedules may be subdivided into three basic
phases which are illustrated in Figure 3.2. The first phase, pre-
competition planning, includes all activities prior to the public
announcement of the competition. The second phase is the for-
mal competition, commencing with the announcement and end-
ing with the jury's selections. Once begun, competitions em-
body a relatively inflexible sequence of events and activities with
limited opportunities for overlap or modification. The third
phase, the post-competition activity, begins with the announce-
ment of the results and may continue with negotiations, contract
preparation, construction, development of catalogues and exhib-
its, and/or archival preparation.

3.2a Deadlines

Each schedule has critical deadlines. The date and duration of
the jurying process, for example, is virtually unchangeable once
it has been established. Jurors are likely to have busy schedules
and any proposed change in dates is unlikely to fit every juror's
calendar.

Other deadlines include the public announcement of the compe-
tition, the distribution of program materials, and the completion
of the question and answer period. Once these deadlines are
locked into place, they cannot be changed without adverse con-
sequences. Suppose the sponsor fails to meet an announced
deadline for distributing program documents or mailing an-
swers to competitors' questions. Such a delay can easily disrupt
any designer's planned schedule to work on the competition and
thereby reduce the number or quality of submissions.

The competition schedule must also fit external time constraints
and deadlines. Competitions for design commissions or design-
develop contracts may be scheduled to fit legislative calendars,
governmental review processes or financing strategies. Another

constraint is timing the announcement of winners to fit the
schedules of news media, professional journals, museums and
galleries, printers and others involved in the dissemination of
the competition results. Here too, failure to meet such deadlines
will adversely affect the competition outcomes.

3.2b Preparing the Work Schedule

The adviser usually prepares a preliminary schedule for approval
by the sponsor. Ideally, the more time available to define the
problem, design the solutions and apply the results, the more
likely the outcome will be successful. Competition schedules,
however, should not be overextended. The adviser must esti-
mate the proper balance and distribution of time for each critical
activity: program preparation, initial design time, the question
and answer period, subsequent design time, and post-competi-
tion negotiations.

What happens, for example if the adviser adds a few weeks to the
preparation of competition documents rather than allowing the
competitors' more time to prepare their design solutions? This
decision gives the entrants less time for reviewing the program,
digesting the information and responding effectively. On the
other hand, a well-written and presented program may save the
designers time and will probably lead to more responsive solu-
tions. Such dilemmas are common and reinforce the need for
proper scheduling.

If scheduling problems arise, there may be a way to reallocate or
spend additional funds to speed up activities. In some instances
extra staff costs may be required to meet deadlines for preparing
documents. In other cases the sponsor may have more time than
money, and a lengthier schedule might lower costs for program-
ming, printing and other activities. As noted above, the budget
and the schedule are interdependent and ought to be planned
simultaneously.

Figure 3.2 TYPICAL SCHEDULES

The following schedule estimates the number of the week when activities are likely to be completed
during a typical design competition.

A. PRE-COMPETITION
TASKS

TYPE OF COMPETITION

Open Open
Competitions Competitions
(One Stage) (Two Stage)

RFQ's Invited

Competitions
(and Charettes)

Preliminary planning
decisions

Week 2 Week 2

Week 1 Week 1

Schedule and budget
completed

Week 4 Week 4

Week 3 Week 3

Jury selection completed

Week 7 Week 7

Week 5 Week 5

First draft of the design
problem completed in
simple design projects
(for major facilities or
development projects
add 6 to 12 weeks)

Week 12

Weeks

Week 9

Announcements and
advertisements complete

Week 13

Week 17

Figure 3.2 Continued

B. COMPETITION
TASKS

TYPE OF COMPETITION

Open Open RFQ's Invited

Competitions Competitions Competitions

(One Stage) (Two Stage) (and Charettes)

Registration opens,
or

RFQ is distributed
or

Invitations begin

Week 18

Not

applicable

Not

Week 19

Not

applicable

Not

Week 20

applicable

Program documents
approved and ready to
distribute

Week 21

Week 22

Week 25

Programs are mailed to
registrants and design
begins

or
Responses to the RFQ are
evaluated, competitors are
selected, programs are
mailed, and design begins

or
Invited competitors agree
to enter, programs are
mailed, and design begins

Week 22

Not
applicable

Week 23

Not
applicable

Week 26

Registration closes, final
mailing of program
documents

Week 23

Not
applicable

Competitors questions are
received

Week 26

Week 25

Week 28

Answers are prepared and
mailed

Week 28

Week 27

Week 30

Submissions are received by
deadline

Week 34

Week 30

Week 33

Jury deliberations

Week 35

Week 31

Week 34

Announcement of Winners

Week 36

Week 32

Week 35

Figure 3.2 (Continued)

C. ADDITIONAL TASKS:
TWO STAGE
COMPETITION

TYPE OF COMPETITION

Open Open
Competitions Competitions
(One Stage) (Two Stage)

RFQ's

Invited
Competitions
(and Charettes)

Review of finalists,
invitation to compete in
stage two

Not
applicable

Week 37

Not
applicable

Program modifications
complete

Not
applicable

Week 38

Not
applicable

Team formation (if
appropriate) and second
design phase begins

Not
applicable

Week 38

Not
applicable

Submissions are received by
deadline

Not
applicable

Week 44

Not
applicable

fury deliberations

Not
applicable

Week 45

Not
applicable

Announcement of winners

Not
applicable

Week 45

Not
applicable

D. POST-COMPETITION
TASKS

TYPE OF COMPETITION

Open
Competitions
(One Stage)

Open
Competitions
(Two Stage)

RFQ's

Invited
Competitions
(and Charettes)

Initiate contract
negotiations

Week 37

Week 47

Week 33

Week 36

Complete text and graphics
for catalogue and jury
report

Week 42

Week 52

Week 36

Week 39

Finish preparations for
exhibit

Week 43

Week 53

Week 38

Week 41

Distribute catalogues and
reports, exhibit opens

Week 45

Week 55

Week 38

Week 41

CHAPTER FOUR

COMMUNICATIONS

In a conventional design process, the relationship between a
client and designer provides ample opportunity for continuous
discussion to clear up misunderstandings and raise new issues.
Competitions, on the other hand, require a dramatically differ-
ent form of communication between the client (sponsor) and de-
signer (competitor). In competitions there is a formal, restricted
and more precise dialogue between the sponsor and the com-
petitor.

In conventional situations, clients usually enter the design pro-
cess with vague objectives and design priorities. The designer
and client then exchange opinions freely as alternatives unfold
and new problems and opportunities emerge. Both designers
and clients realize that trade-offs, cut-backs and modifications
will occur. In this conventional design process, open, uncon-
strained dialogue is the only way to resolve the design problem
successfully.

In competitions the dialogue between the sponsor and competi-
tors is neither frequent nor informal. Even in invited competi-
tions there is far less dialogue than in the conventional design
process. This is not necessarily unproductive. Structured, pre-
cise communication between the sponsor and the competitors
can set the scene for an equally successful, if not superior, design
process. This will happen only if there is a clear understanding of
each step in the process.

4.1 THE SEQUENCE OF COMMUNICATION

The first step in the communication process is the official competi-
tion announcement which solicits interest from potential competi-
tors. It is the initial communication to the public and the profes-

sion. The second round of communications is the program
document which presents the competition rules and defines, in
detail, the design problem. In contrast, many conventional de-
sign processes fail because the client failed to clarify the prob-
lem at the outset.

Even with thorough program documents, there is always the
possibility of omissions or ambiguities which may mislead the
competitors. This dilemma can be resolved by the third step in
the communications process — a formal exchange of questions
and answers. The question and answer period focuses the intellec-
tual curiosity and talent of many designers on one problem. This
is a process of collective inquiry with intellectual resources and
expertise that far exceeds any conventional design process.

In two-stage competitions, there is an intermediate step in the
communications process. The interval between the end of the
first stage and the beginning of the second stage provides oppor-
tunities for several types of communications, including formal
exchange of documents, and informal meetings and personal
conversations. This interim dialogue in a two-stage competition
provides a valuable opportunity to reexamine, clarify and im-
prove the program.

There is still a final step in the communications process that
begins when the jury makes its final decisions and the adviser
notifies the winners. Typically this leads io face-to-face communica-
tion between the sponsor and the winning competitors. In two-
stage and some invited competitions, face-to-face communica-
tions may occur earlier in the process during a meeting between
the sponsor, adviser and the entrants, or during the on-site ac-
tivities in a charette.

4.2 THE ANNOUNCEMENT

The announcement is the point of no return. Prior to the an-
nouncement, a competition can be canceled with a minimum of
adverse consequences.

After the announcement, canceling a competition may incur
serious ethical and economic consequences — it is like canceling
a wedding after the invitations have been sent. It may at first
seem like a small step, but the public announcement of a compe-
tition is a symbol of the sponsor's intent. It assures the community of
designers that the competition will take place as promised.

Figure 4.1 TYPES OF ANNOUNCEMENTS

The selection of the type of announcement(s) should be based upon the number and type
of competitors the sponsor wishes to attract.

1. Advertisements Sponsors may advertise in:

a. professional journals such as:

• Progressive Architecture

• A.I.A. Journal

• Planning

• Journal of Architectural Education.

b. newsletters of professional associations, such as:

• American Institute of Architects (AIA)

• American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)

• American Society of Interior Designers (ASID)

• American Planning Association (APA)

• American Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA)

2. Direct Mail Sponsors also may announce competitions by direct

mailing. After the assembly of an appropriate mailing
list, the sponsor may:

a. develop a large format poster to be sent to:

• design schools and departments

• design firms

• professional societies

• cultural institutions and agencies

b. prepare form letters to be sent to:

• heads of design schools

• principals of design firms

• individual designers

• directors of design societies

• directors of cultural institutions

3. Personal
Contacts

In invited competitions or RFQ's (where there will be
a limited number of entrants), the adviser or sponsor
should contact potential competitors by telephone and
with personal letters.

Development of the announcement should begin during prelimi-
nary planning, allowing ample time for review and modification
prior to its final approval. The style and content of the announce-
ment must attract the attention and arouse the interest of good
designers. The quality of the announcement and its form of
distribution have a direct relationship to the number and quality
of the entrants.

More than one type of announcement may be required to attract
a broad spectrum of qualified designers (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). An
open national competition normally requires a large format post-
er, advertising copy for professional journals, and a direct mail
campaign. Substantial time and effort will be needed for the
graphic design, printing and distribution of the announcements.
The bulk mailing of posters will require assembly of an appropri-
ate mailing list, printing and application of mailing labels, and
folding and sorting the posters. Mailing lists may be obtained
from professional design associations or competition consul-
tants. Two or three months of lead time will be necessary to place
announcements in professional journals targeted to specific
groups of competitors.

The announcement also informs the general public of the forth-
coming competition, helping to attract support from private or-
ganizations, public agencies and special interest groups. Typical-
ly, public announcements include press conferences and press
releases for local media and national journals. Press releases, for
example, may broadly describe the competition process, past
competitions of related interest and the most newsworthy fea-
tures of the current competition.

4.3 DESIGN AND PUBLICATION
OF DOCUMENTS

The program is a working tool for the competitors and a demon-
stration of the design standards the sponsor has set for the
competition. The program documents should be attractive, well
organized and easy to use. This section focuses on the form of
the documents and the publication process, while the contents of
the program are elaborated in Chapter Five.

If competitors cannot find clear information quickly, their work
will be impaired. Consequently, resources must be set aside for
graphic design, technical writing, photography, drawing and
reproduction. Two to three weeks ought to be scheduled for

Figure 4.2 CONTENTS OF ANNOUNCEMENTS

The intent of the announcement is to attract potential competitors. The typical content
of the announcement is listed below.

1. Design
Challenge

The design problem or challenge statement, should
include:

a. major goals

b. the significance of the design problem

c. key constraints.

2. Awards

The awards and prizes should be described,
including:

a. the number and hierarchy of awards

b. all cash prizes

c. any commissions, or contracts

d. negotiation procedures or similar conditions.

3. Deadlines

Of particular interest to the potential competitors is
the schedule and associated deadlines, including the
dates for:

a. the opening and closing of registration

b. the mailing of program documents

c. the receipt of design submissions

d. the jury deliberations

e. the public announcement of the winners.

4. Eligibility
Criteria

6. Inquiries

7. Additional
Information

These should be stated prominently.

5. Fees A statement of the cost of registration and payment

procedure.

The announcement should state the sponsor's or
adviser's name and address, along with a telephone
number for inquiries.

Whenever possible the announcement should contain:

a. the names of, and key information about the:

• sponsor

• individual jurors

• professional adviser

b. anticipated presentation requirements

c. implementation plans and post-competition activities.

A New American House

Madsen and Kuester, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

This large format poster helped advertised and described the competi-
tion which attracted over 360 entrants. The design became a theme
used in other competition documents.

MOlllEm

Tom Ashworth, FED, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Many options were considered for the large format poster for the Saint
Paul Cityscape Competition.

Tom Ashworlh, PED, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

One of four final-round alternatives considered for the Saint Paul
Cityscape Competition poster.

Cityscape Design Competition • 1985
Saint Paul, Minnesota

fyatioiiai Liiciowiiici

Tom Ashworth, PED, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

The final design selected for the poster, program cover, and final report
cover in the Saint Paul Cityscape Competition.

review and approval of all drafts and the final copy, while an-
other month may be needed for photographic reproduction and
printing. The entire process can take two to three months. With
more complex programs that contain maps, technical data, archi-
tectural drawings and photographs, the production process may
begin before the final draft is approved. Figure 4.3 illustrates a
range of production times for program documents.

The program package should be distributed to the competitors
by first class mail so that they all have the opportunity to begin
the competition as soon as possible. In some cases the first
mailing of the program documents is scheduled to occur before
the official closing date for registration. This gives early regis-
trants more time to work on the design, and allows other design-
ers to register at the last minute and receive the program at a later
date.

The number of program documents to be printed should exceed by
as much as 50% the estimated number of registrants. Additional
programs are required for the jurors, staff assistants and the
press. After a competition there are generally requests for copies
of the program. For example, the programs may be requested by
college faculty who wish to use the competition problem as the
basis for an educational exercise. Other requests for program
documents come from design associations who want a record of
the competition, or from potential competition sponsors. Broad
distribution of the program documents helps the sponsor gain
added recognition from the design professions and the general
public. While the initial fixed printing costs can be high, the cost
of printing additional programs is marginal. It is far better to
have extra program packages than to have an undersupply.

4.4 QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

Regardless of the time and effort which goes into the develop-
ment of the program there probably will be omissions and ambi-
guities which will require subsequent correction. The question
and answer period is used to allow for such changes. The ques-
tions and answers become an integral part of the program — they
are an official addendum which must be agreed to and accepted
by the sponsor, jurors and competitors.

They afford sponsors and competitors alike their only opportuni-
ty to clear up misunderstandings. Competitors may discover
significant dilemmas, based on their own design investigation.

The question and answer period allows them to communicate
these discoveries and receive a thorough official, written re-
sponse. Furthermore, when similar questions are raised by sev-
eral competitors, it may be a signal that there is a significant
problem or an unforeseen opportunity that should be investigat-
ed by the sponsor and adviser.

The adviser has the primary responsibility for promptly formu-
lating the answers with the assistance of the sponsor, the adviso-
ry panel and the jurors. Depending upon the magnitude and
content of the competition, there may be anywhere from a hun-
dred to a thousand questions. The larger the number the more
likely there will be duplicate (or near duplicate) questions. Ques-
tions and answers should be organized to help competitors lo-
cate information easily and, equally important, gain insights by
reviewing the concerns expressed by other competitors.

Answers should be provided only to those questions which are
reasonable and relevant to the goals of the competition. A ques-
tion concerning the personal tastes of a juror or confidential
economic data about the sponsor should be judged inappropriate
and no answer need he provided. A request for detailed engineering
data in a building competition, for example, may not be an-
swered because it is at a level of detail not relevant to the compe-
tition. Similarly, questions might not be answered if they require
excessive resources such as conducting a site survey or taking
new soil borings. Some requests can be answered by referring
the designers to articles, books and readily available public docu-
ments.

The question and answer period should occur roughly one-third
of the way between the close of registration and the deadline for
submissions. This gives competitors sufficient time before the
question and answer period to review the program, experiment
with design concepts and then formulate significant questions.
This cannot happen if the deadline for submitting questions is
scheduled too early. Additionally, there must be sufficient time
after the answers have been received, for competitors to respond
and modify their design solutions.

All questions should be submitted anonymously and in writing.
Signatures, stationery letterheads or other forms of personal
identification should be removed in case the sponsor, jurors,
staff or advisory panel members review the correspondence.
Questions and answers should be distributed by first class mail
to all competitors and jurors simultaneously.

Figure 4.3 PRODUCTION TIMES FOR DOCUMENTS

ASSIGNMENT:

TYPE OF DOCUMENT:

Advertisements

Poster

Program:

Problem Description

And Rules

Initial Draft

1-2 days
(adviser)

1 week
(adviser)

3-5 weeks
(adviser)

Edit and Review

Not applicable

1 week
(sponsor)

1-3 mrks

(sponsor and jurors)

Graphics

1-2 days
(adviser)

2-4 weeks
(graphic designer)

1-3 weeks
(graphic designer)

Photography

Not applicable

1 uvek

(photographer if
needed)

1-2 weeks
(photographer)

Review and
Approval

2-4 days
(sponsor)

1-2 weeks

(sponsor and adviser)

1-3 uveks

(sponsor and jurors)

Printing

Not applicable

2-3 iix;eks
(outside printer)

2-4 weeks
(outside printer)

Mailing and
Distribution

Several months
(sponsor staff): lead
time depends on pub-
lishers

1 week

(sponsor staff): re-
quires mailing list
preparation

1 la'ck
(sponsor staff)

Figure 4.3 Continued

(Continued):

Program:

Supplementary

Information

Additional Studies
For Major
Developments

Jury Report

Competition
Catalogue

2-4 weeks
(sponsor staff)

2-3 months
(consultants and
adviser)

1 week
(adviser and
designated jurors)

1-3 weeks
(adviser or profes-
sional writer)

1-2 weeks
(adviser)

2-4 weeks

(adviser and sponsor)

1-3 days
(sponsor)

1 week

(adviser or sponsor)

1-3 weeks
(graphic designer,
draftsperson)

Not applicable

1-2 weeks
(graphic designer)

2-4 weeks
(graphic designer)

1 week

(photographer if
needed)

Not applicable

1-2 weeks
(photographer)

2-4 weeks
(photographer)

Not applicable

2-4 weeks

(adviser and sponsor)

1-3 weeks
(adviser, jurors,
and sponsor)

1 week
(sponsor)

2-4 weeks
(outside printer)

Not applicable

2-3 weeks
(outside printer)

2-4 weeks
(outside printer)

1 week
(sponsor staff)

Not applicable

4-6 weeks
(sponsor staff): re-
quires mailing list
preparation

2-4 weeks
(sponsor staff): re-
quires mailing list
preparation

4.5 FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATIONS

In some invited competitions and on-site charette competitions,
there are opportunities for face-to-face communication prior to
the jury deHberations. There may be a scheduled briefing or
sequence of meetings between the sponsor, adviser and the de-
signers. Such meetings also occur with the first stage finalists in a
two-stage competition.

Face-to-face dialogue should be carefully organized to eliminate
any private or exclusive conversations between the competitors
and the adviser, sponsor or jurors. In all cases there should be a
written record of the meetings and individual conversations
with competitors. This record should be sent to all competitors
and jurors. The point again, is to use the opportunity for direct
dialogue to clarify and improve the problem statement.

In two-stage competitions, face-to-face communication is slight-
ly different. After the first stage, the jurors, in consultation with
the sponsor and adviser, can develop an expanded program
statement for a more detailed second-stage design. Whenever
possible new recommendations should be presented to second-
stage finalists in a face-to-face meeting. This permits a direct
exchange of ideas and information paralleling that in a conven-
tional client-designer relationship. New program recommenda-
tions plus the written record of any discussions with finalists
must be documented and distributed to all finalists and jurors.

4.6 POST-COMPETITION DIALOGUE

Face-to-face communication occurs in almost all competitions
after the jurying, when the sponsor meets the winning design-
er(s). This meeting is often the beginning of a substantial process
of negotiation, especially in competitions for design commis-
sions or design-build and design-develop contracts. During this
period, modifications of the winning design are common.

The opportunity for such post-competition communication does
not imply that the initial problem statement can be less thor-
ough. It implies only that minor programmatic errors are not
likely to have severe consequences. During these post-competi-
tion meetings, the sponsor should be prepared to discuss a broad
range of issues with the winner. The first face-to-face meeting is
not only a social event — it is the occasion to start using the
competition results.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE COMPETITION
PROGRAM

In architectural practice a program presents the cHent's architec-
tural needs in technical, functional and behavioral terms. In
competitions, the word "program" has a broader meaning in-
cluding not only the definition of the design problem, but also
procedural rules and requirements, the awards, information
about the sponsor and issues which should influence the design
solutions. A competition program refers to both a product and a
process and is the most critical competition document. There are
three categories of information common to most competition
programs: general guidelines, a description of the design problem
and supplementary information. Each of these three major program
areas is discussed in this chapter.

The key to a successful program is a careful distinction between
requirements, recommendations and options. Requirements in-
clude both features of the presentation necessary for the jury
deliberations and features of the design necessary to solve the
sponsor's problem.

Recommendations include those features which are highly desir-
able but may not be necessary for either an effective jury evalua-
tion or a good design solution. Options are possibilities which
some competitors may find helpful but which, by themselves, do
not imply a good submission.

A requirement, if violated, must result in disqualification. Ignor-
ing recommendations, however, should do no more than lessen
the competitor's chance of receiving an award. Options, on the
other hand, should be relatively neutral and accepting or reject-
ing an option should have no predetermined impact on the
competitor's probability of success.

This three-way distinction between what the competitors must
do, what they should do and what they may do is elaborated
throughout this chapter. By balancing requirements, recommen-
dations and options, the competition program can give good
designers room for creativity and increase the number of useful
solutions.

5.1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW

The program should be developed jointly by the sponsor, the
adviser and the advisory panel. The portion of the program
which defines the design problem may be developed by other
consultants under separate contracts. In a design-build competi-
tion, for example, a separate consultant might develop an eco-
nomic market analysis for use as part of the program. In complex
projects such as a performing arts center, city hall, hotel or
educational facility, an outside expert should be retained to de-
velop or assist in drafting a facilities program. In some cases, plans
for a competition do not even begin until after such a facilities
program has been prepared.

The professional adviser, with the sponsor's approval, should be
responsible for the final draft of all program documents. Even if a
facilities program has been developed previously, the adviser
should still adapt this information to fit the constraints of the
design process created by the competition.

The program should be reviewed and approved in writing by the
sponsor, the jurors, and others with relevant authority. If the
sponsor is a local government agency, for example, elected offi-
cials may have to approve the final document. If the sponsor is a
private organization then a board of directors may be required to
approve the program. The review and approval process should
also be described in the program document for the benefit of the
competitors.

5.2 GUIDELINES: REQUIREMENTS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPTIONS

The guidelines must clearly state the authority, rights and obliga-
tions of the sponsor, jurors, adviser and competitors. Figure 5.1
lists the basic categories of information contained in competition
programs. The contents vary with each type of competition. An
invited competition, for example, may have no rules governing
eligibility, while a competition for a design idea may have limited

Figure 5.1 PROGRAM CONTENTS

The following represents the information contained in a typical design competition
program:

1. Introduction

This statement should include:

a. a brief description of the design problem

b. the general structure of the competition

c. the sponsor's plans to use the competition results.

2. Personnel

The program should describe the authority,
responsibilities and background of the persons who
will conduct the competition, including:

a. the sponsor

b. the professional adviser

c. the jurors.

3. Schedule and
Deadlines

4. Eligibility

5. Design Problem

The program must present the schedule of activities
and precise deadlines, including dates for the:

a. opening and closing of registration

b. mailing dates of the program documents

c. receipt of questions and mailing of answers

d. receipt of submissions

e. jury deliberations

f. announcement and notification of the winners.

The rules should describe:

a. any restrictions on eligibility

b. methods of confirmation

c. special conditions, such as afilliations with other firms.

The heart of the program is the description of the
design problem. This should contain:

a. the general goals and priorities

b. specific aesthetic, functional and technical objectives

c. design constraints and special conditions

d. design attributes or components which are required,
recommended and optional

e. supplementary information such as:

• technical data

• maps, diagrams or photographs relating to the site or
locale

• applicable laws, codes or regulations

f. relevant commentary about the design problem by the
sponsor, advisory panel or competition staff.

Figure 5.1 Continued

Presentation and
Submission

All presentation and submission requirements must
be described precisely^ including the:

a. size, shape and dimension of drawings (required,
recommended and optional)

b. content, scale and location of drawings (required,
recommended and optional)

c. presentation techniques and media such as pen and ink,
pencil or color (required, recommended and optional)

d. type, amount and location of any written narratives
(required, recommended and optional)

e. guidelines for presenting scale models, or model
photography

f. acceptability or advisability of submitting original
drawings or reproductions

g. manner in which the presentations will be displayed
during the jury deliberations.

7. Awards and The program must clearly describe the awards and

Prizes prizes including:

a. the type and amount of cash prizes

b. the procedures, if any, for awarding design commissions
and other service contracts

c. the hierarchy of awards

d. hors de concours and other special categories

e. other special conditions pertaining to the awards.

8. Jury Authority

The authority of the jury in making the awards should
be specified. Typically the jury:

a. has sole authority for determining winning entries

b. may vacate specific awards and/or declare ties

c. may have limited discretionary powers to

• vary the number of honorable mentions

• recommend submissions for exhibition or publication

• designate special awards of merit.

Figure 5.1 Continued

9. Communications

In open, anonymous competitions the procedures for
communications between the competitors and the
sponsor or adviser must be stated, including:

a. prohibitions against the use of signatures and other
identifying marks when submitting questions or
submissions.

b. prohibitions, if any, against personal communications
with the sponsor or adviser other than the prescribed
quest ion-and-answer procedure.

In invited competitions, the second half of two-stage
competitions and some RFQ's there must be special
provisions describing:

a. the time and place for sponsor-competitor dialogue

b. regulations concerning the personnel who may be involved
in such dialogue.

10. Post-
Competition
Plans and
Procedures

Post-competition plans normally address the use of
winning and non-winning design solutions. The
program must contain statements concerning:

a. the ownership of the submissions

b. the ownership of the design ideas and procedures to ensure
that there will be no unauthorized use of design ideas

c. the rights of the sponsor and selected competitors
regarding commissions, service contracts and construction
or development contracts

d. plans for keeping or returning winning and non-winning
solutions

e. the sponsor's right to exhibit, reproduce or publish the
submissions, and any plans for such activities

f. plans for other post -compel it ion activities, such as
conferences and forums.

11. Competition An entry form should be part of the program

Entry Form document. This form should include specific

instructions regarding its completion and delivery as
part of the design submisson. It should include:

the name(s) and address(es) of the competitors

telephone numbers

authorized signatures

a signed statement in which the competitors agree

to abide by all the rules and requirements of the

competition and any conditions regarding awards,

prizes and post-competition activities.

presentation requirements but complex guidelines for the publi-
cation of submissions. A design-build competition may have
rules governing all issues, in particular, any subsequent contrac-
tual arrangements.

5.2a Eligibility

Eligibility criteria should be broad enough to attract a wide range
of competitors who have the skills and knowledge to meet the
sponsor's needs. To ensure this, eligibility requirements are of-
ten stated in terms of professional registration or licensure, dem-
onstrated talent and experience, organizational or staff capacity,
geographic location or institutional affiliation. At one extreme,
eligibility in a competition seeking general design concepts for
promotional purposes should be unconstrained. At the other
extreme, a competition for the rights to own and develop proper-
ty should be highly restricted, involving requirements for finan-
cial capabilities and demonstrated expertise in completing high
quality design projects. Figure 5.2 outlines some common eligi-
bility criteria for different types of competitions.

In open competitions eligibility requirements must appear in
both the announcement and the program documents. State-
ments concerning eligibility must be precise and easy to apply.
An eligibility criterion requiring state architectural registration,
for example, can be applied easily by requiring entrants to sub-
mit their registration numbers or equivalent proof. On the other
hand, eligibility criteria requiring designers to have specialized
expertise related to a specific type of problem may be more
difficult to apply in an open competition. These criteria are more
typical of invited competitions, particularly those that begin with
a request-for-qualifications (RFQ).

In an RFQ competition, eligibility is, in itself, a form of competi-
tion. The sponsor, with the aid of the adviser and perhaps a
review panel, formally evaluates the credentials of designers
responding to the RFQ and then selects the best entrants. This
procedure is more extensive relative to an open competition and
can be applied using more comprehensive and judgmental crite-
ria. The RFQ announcement should clearly state who will make
the initial selection, how they will do it, and the evaluation
criteria which will be used.

In invited competitions, formal eligibility requirements are irrel-
evant, since designers need not submit credentials for review.

Instead, the sponsor initiates the search with the assistance of
the adviser. Competitors are invited to submit credentials only
after they have been identified as candidates. This screening
process often involves review of published design projects, in-
depth interviews, confidential inquiries and, occasionally, per-
sonal inspection of past projects.

5.2b Registration Fees and Procedures

All competitions have some form of registration process and
associated fee. While the fees offset some competition costs they
also serve other purposes. Traditionally, fees have been consid-
ered a good-faith commitment by the competitors. Fees also act as a
filtering mechanism, by discouraging designers who might reg-
ister capriciously and would, therefore, be unlikely to prepare
and submit a solution. On the other hand, if the fees are set too
high, this may discourage serious designers from entering the
competition. The appropriate amount, structure and use of the
fees for open competitions is presented in Figure 5.3.

The deadlines and fees for registration in open competitions
must be stated prominently in the announcements. Registrations
must be submitted by competitors prior to their receipt of the
program documents.

In RFQ and invited competitions, registration generally occurs
after the competitors have been selected. No entry fee should be
required since it would generate little revenue and serve no
meaningful purpose. In fact, the concept of the entry fee is often
reversed in some invited competitions, where the sponsor pays
the designer a substantial fee to submit a solution. The sample
budgets shown in Figure 3.1 include some invited competitions
and on-site charettes where the design fees range from $1250 to
$5000 per entrant.

5.2c Deadlines and Deliveries

All competitors must meet the stated deadlines for registration,
forwarding questions and submitting the solution. In turn, the
sponsor is obligated to meet deadlines for mailing program doc-
uments, responding to questions, conducting the jury and an-
nouncing the winners. All deadlines should be stated promi-
nently in the program. Dates and times should be defined
unambiguously using phrases such as the time of a postmark, the
time of receipt at the sponsor's address, or the local time at the sponsor's
address. Figure 5.4 lists these issues.

Figure 5.2 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:

From Least to
Most Restrictive

COMPETITION GOALS:

Promotion, Resource Design Construction

Education Development Commission or

Development

Registration fee only

Citizenship or residency

Design students in qualified
programs

Design students under faculty
supervision

»>

Licensed designers in
appropriate professions (e.g.,
architects, engineers and/or
planners)

»>

Licensed designers in specified
geographical area (e.g.,
designers registered in city or
state

Licensed designer on approved
list (e.g., firms qualified for
government work)

Licensed designer with
specified credentials (e.g.,
restoration, health facilitites or
construction management)

Licensed designers in firms
with given organizational
capacity (e.g., reputation for
effective management)

Key:

i^ = Recommended

O = Optional

X = Not Recommended

Figure 5.2 Continued

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:

From Least to
Most Restrictive

TYPE OF COMPETITION:

Open RFQ Invited (or Two-Stage

(One-Stage) Charette) Competition

Registration fee only

Citizenship or residency

Design students in qualified
programs

Design students under faculty
supervision

Licensed designers in
appropriate professions (e.g.,
architects, engineers and/or
planners)

]/>

»^

Licensed designers in specified
geographical area (e.g.,
designers registered in city or
state

Licensed designer on approved
list (e.g., firms qualified for
government work)

Licensed designer with
specified credentials (e.g.,
restoration, health facilitites or
construction management)

Licensed designers in firms
with given organizational
capacity (e.g., reputation for
effective management)

Key:

\^ = Recommended

O = Optional

X = Not Recommended

The consequences of not meeting a deadline should be empha-
sized. In the case of a late registration, the competitor should not
be allowed to enter and the registration fee returned. A question
that arrives after the close of the official deadline for questions
should be ignored. Submissions that arrive after the delivery
deadline should not be shown to the jury (and probably should
remain unopened).

In large competitions, hundreds of submissions must be safely stored
before they are unwrapped, catalogued and examined in preparation
for the jurying process.

Figure 5.3

REGISTRATION FEES FOR OPEN

COMPETITIONS

ISSUE:

OPTIONS:

ADVANTAGES:

DISADVANTAGES:

Amount of

Low

Maximizes the number of

Increases the potential for

Registration Fee

($25-$50)

competitors.

capricious solutions and

(1986)

generates less revenue.

Average

Eliminates some capricious

May eliminate some

($50-$100)

entries.

potentially serious
competitors.

High

Eliminates almost all

Will probably eliminate

(over $100)

capricious entries and
generates the maximum
revenue.

some serious competitors.

Single or Split

Single fees:

Simpler to manage.

Less fair to competitors.

Fee

Potential

since they must make

competitor makes

complete payment prior to

one payment both

deciding whether or not to

for the program

submit a solution.

documents and for

the right to submit

a solution.

Split fee:

Encourages serious

More difficult to manage

Potential

competitors to submit, and

and makes it more

competitor makes

allows others to decide not

difficult to estimate

one early payment

to submit.

revenues.

to purchase the

program

documents and a

separate payment,

at a later date, for

the right to submit

a solution.

Allocation of

Allocation to

Will assist in offsetting

Amount of revenue is

Registration

competition

fixed costs.

uncertain and therefore

Revenue

activities

cannot be relied upon to
meet required expenses.

Allocation to

Ensures partial budget for

Does not offset the fixed

post-competition

publications and

costs of the competition.

activities

dissemination of
competition results.

In addition to deadlines, other requirements for the deHvery of
submissions must be stated clearly. For example, government
and some private mail services have specific rules concerning the
size and weight of packages and the costs, liabilities and timeli-
ness of delivery. This information should be checked beforehand
and may be included in the program documents, along with a
statement that the sponsor has no responsibility for the safe and
timely delivery of the submissions.

Packaging guidelines are also important. Some open competi-
tions require the submission of work on rigid boards, while
others require drawings to be rolled and mailed in tubes. Regard-
less of the delivery technique, opening and disposing of several
hundred containers and displaying all the work in a large, open
competition can easily take two or three days, even with extra
staff support.

5. 2d Presentation Guidelines

Guidelines for the presentation of solutions should be based on
the nature of the design problem, the information needed by the
jurors, and the post-competition use of the submissions. Presen-
tation rules must facilitate equitable, timely and accurate com-
parisons of the design proposals.

Overly strict presentation requirements may inhibit a competi-
tor's ability to communicate a good solution. If there are too
many presentation requirements competitors may be forced to
include drawings which are unimportant, thus precluding the
presentation of potentially significant information. Presentation
requirements which are too lax, however, may fail to include
drawings which relate directly to important design issues or
evaluative criteria. Figure 5.5 lists various types of presentation
requirements, recommendations and options.

In open competitions jurors must evaluate a large number of
submissions in a restricted time period. It is common to review
hundreds of solutions in just two to three days. In these circum-
stances, requiring a large presentation (such as three or more
drawings, each 30 inches by 40 inches) will make it difficult for
jurors to compare the solutions efficiently and fairly. Moreover,
many designers may be dissuaded from entering competitions
which have overly extensive presentation requirements, espe-
cially if they can enter equally rewarding competitions with far
less demanding presentation requirements.

Figure 5.4 DEADLINES AND DELIVERY
REQUIREMENTS

DEADLINES

All competitions have several critical deadlines that fall into two general
categories:

Sponsor deadlines are the:

a. mailing and distribution of the program documents

b. mailing and distribution of the questions and answers

c. jury deliberations and final selections

d. public announcement of the competition results.

Competitor deadlines are the:

a . receipt of registra t ion fees

b. receipt of questions

c. receipt of submissions.

DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

Delivery requirements must be precise and prominently presented. An
example of such a statement might be:

''Submissions must be postmarked by . . . (hour) . . . p.m., . . . (date) . . .,
local time . . . (location) . . ., and received no later than . . . (hour) . . .
p.m., . . . (date) . . ., local time at the following address: . . . (sponsor's
address) . . . Submissions sent by private or public mail services must bear the
official postmark indicating when the submission was received by that service."

It is advisable to add a statement to the effect that:

". . . neither the sponsor nor the professional adviser will bear any responsibility
for the safe or timely delivery of the competition submissions."

Presentation requirements are generally greater for entrants in
invited competitions than open ones, and also for the finalists in
the second half of a two-stage competition. In this case, juries
typically have more time to examine each presentation. Com-
petitors are more likely to invest their time because of the in-
creased probability of success and the added prestige associated
with invited competitions.

Presentation guidelines should address the way in which sub-
missions will be handled during and after the jurying. Boards,
for example, may be mounted on walls, taped together, hinged
and so on. The program should require the use of appropriate
materials and state exactly how presentations will be shown to
the jury. Presentation guidelines often indicate that drawings or
boards will be sequenced horizontally with flush edges, so that
the adjoining drawings create a larger graphic composition.

Presentation guidelines may also relate to the post-competition
use of submissions for exhibits, catalogues and subsequent
graphic reproductions. Specifying only black and white draw-
ings, for example, will decrease printing costs. Requiring the use
of smaller boards or drawings (such as 20 inches by 30 inches)
often facilitates shipping and other arrangements for exhibits.
These considerations are particularly relevant to competitions
with promotional and educational goals.

5.2e Anonymity

In most competitions it is standard practice to require anonymity
of the designers until the jury has made its final decisions. The
only exceptions to this practice are on-site charcttcs or well publi-
cized invited competitions with renown designers — and even in
these cases anonymity in the jurying process should be encour-
aged. Anonymity not only protects the competitors against bi-
ased treatment owing to authorship, but it also protects sponsors
and jurors against accusations of such treatment. Rules for ano-
nymity typically state that no personal identification is permitted
anywhere on the submissions. Names of authors are traditional-
ly submitted in a sealed envelope attached to the submission or
in some other manner specified on the entry form.

Some designers are ineligible to compete in anonymous competi-
tions due to unusual circumstances, such as being a business
associate of a juror or a member of the sponsor's staff. These
designers, and others who so choose, may submit solutions in a

Figure 5.5 PRESENTATIONS: REQUIREMENTS,

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPTIONS

Competition presentations should include required, recommended and optional features,
which may be defined in the program using statements such as:

REQUIREMENTS: "The following are mandatory features of the presentation.
The professional adviser will review all submissions for
compliance with these requirements and designate
submissions which fail to meet these requirements as being
ineligible for an award. "

RECOMMEN- "The following are recommended features of the

DATIONS: presentation. Complying with these recommendations will

increase the efficiency with which the jurors can evaluate the
relative merits of a submission. While competitors are urged
to follow these recommendations, failure to do so will not
lead to disqualification. Competitors must use their own
judgment as to whether conformance to these
recommendations will better communicate the merits of their
design proposal."

OPTIONS:

"The following are optional features of the presentation,
suggested solely to illustrate the range of opportunities
available to the competitors. Inclusion or exclusion of these
options is not expected to have a predeterminable impact,
either favorable or unfavorable, on the jury's ability to
evaluate the solutions. Competitors must use their own
judgment in accepting or rejecting these options."

Figure 5.5 Continued

For open competitions and competitions for promotion,
educational or resource development

DEGREE OF RESTRICTION:

TYPE OF REQUIRED RECOMMENDED OPTIONAL

PRESENTATION FEATURES FEATURES FEATURES

FEATURE

1. Number and size of
drawings

All

None

2. Orientation of boards
(e.g., vertical or
horizontal)

All

None

3. Type of drawings (e.g.
plans, sections and
sketches)

Some

Most

Few

4. Location of drawings

Some

Most

Fejc

5. Scale of drawings

Most

Few

6. Orientation of plans,
sketches

Most

Few

None

7. Presentation media,(e.g.
ink, pencil, and model
photography)

Feu^

Most

Few

8. Labels, diagrams and
narratives

Feu^

Most

Feiv

9. Quantitative data (e.g.
areas and volumes)

Feu^

Most

Fezv

10. Scale models

Most

Few

None

Key: All = All presentation features of this type should he at this degree of restriction

Most = Most presentation features of this type should be at this degree of restriction

Some = Some presentation features of this type should he at this degree of restriction

Few = Few presentation features of this type should he at this degree of restriction

None = No presentation features of this type should be at this degree of restriction

Figure 5.5 Continued

TYPE OF

PRESENTATION

FEATURE

For invited competitions, RFQ's and competitions for

commissions, design-build or design-development

contracts

DEGREE OF RESTRICTION:

REQUIRED RECOMMENDED OPTIONAL
FEATURES FEATURES FEATURES

1. Number and size of
drawings

All

None

2. Orientation of boards
(e.g., vertical or
horizontal)

All

None

3. Type of drawings (e.g.
plans, sections and
sketches)

Most

Few

4. Location of drawings

Some

Most

Few

5. Scale of drawings

Most

Few

None

6. Orientation of plans,
sketches

Most

Few

None

7. Presentation media,(e.g.
ink, pencil, and model
photography)

Some

Most

Few

8. Labels, diagrams and
narratives

Most

Few

9. Quantitative data (e.g.
areas and volumes)

Most

Few

10. Scale models

Most

Few

None

separate category in which their names are made known to the
jury. Such submissions are referred to as hors de concours (or
"outside the competition").

Historically, the designation of hors de concours submissions re-
fers to any entry that violates any programmatic requirement
(not just rules for anonymity) but may still receive some type of
recognition. Here, however, the term is used exclusively to refer
to entries where designers violate only the rule for anonymity,
with full prior understanding that their work is ineligible for any
official award. If hors de concours submissions are expected and
considered desirable, provisions for them should be stated in the
program.

5.2f Awards

The program should describe precisely all awards and associated
outcomes. Typically, the first place prize, its cash award and
contingent rights and obligations are emphasized. The rights
and obligations of all the winners — not just first place — must
be stated fully in the initial program document. Figure 5.6 lists
prizes and awards for different competitions.

Generally, the jury is required to select first, second and third
place winners. They also may have the option to declare a tie for
first, second or third place. The number of honorable mentions
or awards of merit may be fixed or optional. Again, these provi-
sions must be stated in the program.

The precise wording of the awards is critical. If, for example, the
the first place solution is unsatisfactory due to a significant
change in the sponsor's needs, then there may be a valid reason
and ethical procedure for implementing a different award-win-
ning solution. (Section 7.1 in Chapter Seven and Figure 1.4 in
Chapter One elaborate this issue.) Even rules for selecting non-
winning entries for publication or exhibition must be clearly
presented. For instance, the jury may have only advisory powers
in this regard while the final authority rests with the sponsor or
adviser.

The rules should state that the adviser and not the jury has the
sole authority to disqualify submissions which have violated
programmatic requirements. In rare cases, disqualified entries
are shown to the jury and even receive some form of informal
recognition (Section 6.5 in Chapter Six discusses this issue.) The

point here is that the rules for, and consequences of, disqualifica-
tion should be written into the program as part of the agreement
among the sponsor, jurors, competitors and adviser.

5.2g Ownership and Use of Submissions

The program document must state explicitly the respective rights
of the sponsor and competitors with regard to the use of submis-
sions subsequent to the outcome of the competition. It is impor-
tant that the sponsor's intentions regarding commissions, publi-
cations, construction contracts and other use of the work are
clearly conveyed to competitors prior to entry, to ensure that no
misunderstandings arise at a later stage. Advisers and sponsors
should be painstaking in their attention to this matter, seeking
expert legal counsel if necessary to ensure that entrants are fully
informed of the potential use of their design presentations.

This is equally important with regard to designs which are not
selected as winners, which the sponsor may wish to exhibit or
publish in subsequent promotional or educational material.
These conditions should be conveyed to the prospective com-
petitors, and agreed to in writing by all entrants on the competi-
tion entry form.

The actual ownership of the designer's work is also a significant
matter. The Federal Copyright Act of 1976 can provide protection
of designer's drawings under certain circumstances. Patent law,
an altogether more complex area, can give protection to ideas in
the use of industrial products, furnishings, technological innova-
tions or the like — although the process to secure a patent is
much more difficult and rarely used by architects.

It is probably unnecessary to overly complicate the competition
by trying to legislate such issues. Instead, to ensure that the
sponsor's intentions can be met and that the entrants' rights are
respected and maintained, the program document should em-
brace the entrants' rights of ownership of the design ideas (even
if the entrant is not a licensed or registered professional) while
specifically outlining the procedures whereby the sponsor can
make use of those ideas.

Typically, the first, second and third place awards will contain
explicit provisions regarding use of the designs, financial awards
and future contractual relationships with the selected design-
er(s). If negotiations between the sponsor and selected designers

Figure 5.6 TYPES OF AWARDS

ORGANIZATION
OF AWARDS

TYPICAL CONTENTS
OF AWARDS

TYPE OF COMPETITION
Open Invited/KfQ

A. HIERARCHICAL
AWARDS

First Place

Cash prize: 40% to 60% of total prize
money

Other: may include commission or
contract

Second Place

Cash prize: 20% to 30% of total prize
money

Other: may include secondary
negotiating rights

Third Place

Cash prize: 10% to 20% of total prize
money

Other: may include subsequent
negotiating rights

Honorable
(or Award

Mention
of Merit)

Each cash prize: 5% to 10% of total
prize money; or

Other: no cash prize, recognition only

B. TIERED
AWARDS

First Tier

(First Award, Winner)

Cash prizes: equal prizes 3 to 5 times
greater than second tier cash prizes

Second Tier
(Award, Honorable
Mention, Award of
Merit)

Cash prizes: 2 to 3 times the number
of prizes in first tier, but less than
33% of the wlue of a top prize; or

Other: no cash prize, secondary
recognition

C. TWO-STAGE
COMPETITIONS

First Stage
(Finalist or Winner)

Cash prizes: equal cash amounts for
winning (there may also be an
additional fee paid to finalists who
agree to enter stage tuv)

Other: finalist has the right to cuter
stage tuK) (may be contingent upon
special conditions such as
demonstrated expertise or affiliation
with other firms)

Second Stage

Cash prizes: typically structured as
hierarchical award (noted above)

Other: commission, contract or
negotiating rights structured in
hierarchical awards (noted above)

Figure 5.6 Continued

ORGANIZATION
OF AWARDS

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TYPE OF COMPETITION
OF JURY Open Invited/Rf Q

A. HIERARCHICAL
AWARDS

Vacate an award for a cash prize (no
prize is given)

Declare a tie for a cash prize (divide
the cash equally)

Vacate or declare tie for the award of a
commission or contract

Recommend solutions for exhibition or
publication

Designate eligible entries for
unannounced awards (e.g., special
merit or commendation)

Designate disqualified entries for
unannounced recognition (e.g., hors
de concours award or special
recognition)

B. TIERED
AWARDS

Select, within limits, the number of
awards at each tier (e.g., 3 to 5
winners and 5 to 10 honorable
mentions)

Designate eligible entries for
announced awards (e.g., special
merit or commendation)

Designate disqualified entries for un-
announced recognition (e.g., hors de
concours award or special recognition)

TWO STAGE
COMPETITIONS

Select within limits the number of
finalists for stage two (e.g., 3 to 5
finalists or 6 to 10 finalists)

Vacate awards or declare ties for cash
prizes, commissions or contracts in
stage two

Designate eligible entries in stage one
for announced awards (e.g., special
merit or commendation)

Designate disqualified entries in stage
one for unannounced recognition
(e.g., hors de concours award or
special recognition)

Key: \^ = Recommended

Not recommended

Optional

prove to be unsuccessful, however, provisions could be made
either to allow the sponsor to negotiate with the second place
winner or have another designer continue work on the selected
solution. (Section 7.1 and Figure 1.4 also elaborate this issue.)
Again, if any issues seem complex or unclear, legal help should
be sought in drafting of the program document.

Even with carefully conceived and well worded procedures, un-
authorized use of ideas can become a problem. For example,
what is to prevent a sponsor insisting that features of other, non-
winning designs are incorporated into a first place scheme? On
the other hand, mere similarities between a modification of a
selected design and some portion of another design may well be
unintentional. These situations are clearly difficult to document
and are unlikely to be addressed under standard copyright pro-
cedures.

To avoid some of these dilemmas, the sponsor should scrupu-
lously avoid opportunities for the unauthorized use of non-se-
lected solutions. Alternatively, the sponsor might establish clear
and fair procedures for giving equitable compensation and credit
to non-winning designers whose work is used (in whole or in
part) in a manner beyond the stated intent of the competition.

Displaying a large number of solutions to be viewed by the jury re-
quires considerable preparation. Here, 365 submissions have been
taped and mounted back-to-back for the New American House Compe-
tition, Minneapolis College of Art and Design.

For example, the program may state that the sponsor has the
right to use non-winning design solutions, or parts thereof, if
due compensation is made. When the work is less than the
whole design, the paid amount and credit could be negotiable
and the program document may contain some financial formula
(based perhaps on comparable hourly rates) to frame the discus-
sion between the parties.

These procedures may appear complex, but they give the spon-
sor maximum flexibility in pursuing the effective use of the
competition results, while ensuring that all competitors who
contribute in any way are fairly compensated. Stressing such
information in the program document ensures that the margin
for misunderstanding is lessened, thereby reducing the likeli-
hood of any long and complex litigation. It also indicates the
ethical and equitable nature of the competition to prospective
entrants.

5.2h Return of Submissions

In addition to the ownership and use of submissions, the return
of work may become an irksome problem. The sponsor may
decide, for a number of reasons, to retain all entries or at least not
return them. If this is explicitly outlined at the outset, there is
little chance of any problem arising. Similarly, policies concern-
ing the retrieval of work by the competitors should be stated
clearly.

In larger open competitions, the logistics of wrapping, insuring
and mailing hundreds of boards is time-consuming, risky and
expensive. Many programs in these competitions state that no
work will be returned under any circumstances, that it will be
held for a brief period (90 days) and then destroyed. In other
cases, the work may be stored for archival purposes with con-
trolled and restricted access. In limited or invited competitions,
however, submissions not selected for any purpose should prob-
ably be returned to the competitors upon request. In all cases,
the program should state what will happen to all of the submis-
sions after the competition and should urge competitors to keep
a complete record of their submissions.

5.3 SPECIFYING THE DESIGN PROBLEM

The heart of a competition is the design problem, which is first
summarized in the announcement and later elaborated in the
competition program. Some problems can be described success-

Figure 5.7 THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

Examples of design problem statements may be found in traditional architectural
facilities programs and similar documents from other disciplines. The following is a
suggested outline of a problem statement for a typical competition:

1. Goals

This should be a general statement of the principal
goals of the sponsor, limited to a few major issues.

2. Objectives

Following the basic goals there should be a longer,
more specific list of the sponsor's needs. If possible
the objectives should be ordered according to priority.

3. Design Features
and Attributes

Specific design issues are always included in the
problem statement. The way in which these are
classified will govern the way in which the
competitors address the design problem. If
successfully presented these will assist and not
constrain the competitors. Some examples of the more
traditional ways to classify design issues are:

a. aesthetic, technical, social and economic issues;

b. spatial areas, volumes, shapes and similar constraints for
interiors, building envelopes and site plans;

c. temporal constraints, such as the features for phase one
and phase two of a planned project.

Figure 5.7 Continued

4. Requirements,
Recommend-
ations and
Options

Wherever possible, design problems and the sponsor's
objectives should be described or classified within
three categories:

a. Requirements

These are design features or attributes which must he
evident in the design solution. Failure to meet
requirements means the solution fails to achieve essential
objectives and the solution must be disqualified.

b. Recommendations

These are design features or attributes which are desirable,
but conceivably may be ignored and still result in a
superior solution. The absence of these features or
attributes does not result in disqualification. There should
be a clear, positive relationship between complying with
these recommendations and conforming to the evaluative
criteria given to the jurors (see below).

c. Options

These are design features or attributes which may or may
not be included as part of the submission. They should be
given serious consideration by the competitors, but the
inclusion or exclusion of these items carries no implication
of penalty or reward.

5. Evaluative The problem statement should contain explicit

Criteria evaluative criteria which the jurors are obligated to

apply in their selection process. These criteria must
relate directly to the objectives as well as the required
and recommended design features or attributes. When
possible the evaluative criteria should be ordered
according to priority.

fully in a few paragraphs while others may require lengthy re-
ports. A problem statement for a design concept for a small
urban landmark may require only a brief statement of objectives
with less than ten pages of supplementary information. On the
other hand, a facilities program for a large government building
complex may require several months of original research and
interviews and result in a document exceeding one hundred
pages. In competitions for mixed-use urban developments, there
may be extensive market surveys, real estate analyses and legal
investigations needed to prepare a comprehensive statement of
the problem. Such studies are needed in most large scale design
projects, and should be anticipated as a necessary component of
the competition program.

When the situation allows for, or demands, the simultaneous
development of a major facilities program as part of the broader
competition program, then the sponsor ought to seek the advice
of the professional adviser. Some advisers assist in the prepara-
tion of a modest facilities program. In other cases the adviser
works with separate consultants who specialize in programming
the type of facilities being considered.

In the most typical situation for major design projects, the client
will have already prepared, with an outside consultant, a com-
prehensive facilities program. In these instances, the adviser,
with the approval of the sponsor, must modify the existing facili-
ties program so that it is a suitable component of the broader
competition program.

5.3a Precision and Clarity

The precise wording and clarity of the design problem is critical.
This is especially evident when contrasting a conventional client-
designer relationship with that of the sponsor-competitor rela-
tionship. Suppose one part of a larger facilities program requires
ten equally sized rooms, each serving the same function, and the
designer wishes to modify the number or size of the rooms, or to
expand their functions. In a conventional client-designer rela-
tionship these possibilities can be explored directly through con-
versations, correspondence and drawings. The precise wording
of the so-called requirement is not crucial, as the problem statement
has only to communicate the general significance of the items in
question.

In a competition, however, once the questions and answers are
concluded, the designer cannot discuss the program with the
sponsor. The designer alone decides what action to take and the
consequences of the action may vary. If the designer changes a
program requirement, then the consequence should be disquali-
fication. If the designer ignores a program recommendation then
the consequence may be less severe — the jury may simply
dislike that specific decision, but still recognize the merit of other
aspects of the design.

It is therefore necessary to communicate all the relevant knowl-
edge about the problem — not just the basic requirements and
their general significance (Figure 5.7). The best way to do this is
to indicate clearly the intended attributes of the design which
are required, those which are recommended, and those which
may be considered as options (the musts, shoulds and mayhes of
the problem). There should be additional subdivisions of infor-
mation that describe the sponsor's objectives and the evaluative
criteria to be used by the jury.

The point is not to hold back information because it may be
superficially interpreted as impairing creativity — this is simply
not the case with good designers. Rather, all the information
must be structured and the priorities clearly presented. In this
way good designers can understand the problem without the
benefit of the ongoing dialogue found in conventional client-
designer relationships.

5.3b Evaluative Criteria

All problem statements should include a separate section de-
scribing the criteria which will be used to evaluate the solutions.
In competitions, evaluative criteria should be defined as those
principles or standards which the jury agrees to use in making
its decisions. These criteria act as a filter through which the jury
views the presentation of solutions in relation to the competition
goals (Figure 5.8). Listing the criteria is not just another way to
present program requirements and recommendations. Criteria
are more general qualitative standards intended for decision-
making, which require the use of expert judgment.

The criteria should be derived directly from the announced ob-
jectives of the competition. In some cases it may be adequate to
have one criterion stated as the degree to which the design solutions,
as interpreted by the jury, achieve the stated objectives of the competi-

tion. Typically, however, the stated objectives are too abstract
and, therefore, the criteria should be more concrete. Suppose the
objectives for a housing design competition include meeting the
needs of elderly residents. An associated criterion might be written
as the degree to which the interior design and site plan meet the unique
needs of elderly residents as defined by the program requirements and
recommendations. By dividing the initial objective into two com-
ponents — interior design and site plan — and by referencing
other program contents, this criterion becomes less abstract than
the initial objective and provides a clearer direction for competi-
tors and jurors.

Criteria, and the objectives from which they derive, may cover a
variety of aesthetic, social, political, technical or economic issues
related to the particular design problem. An aesthetic criterion,
for example, might be stated as the degree to which the facades of the
building, the building form and the site design are responsive to, and
visually compatible with surrounding buildings and site conditions.
This criterion represents a particular aesthetic viewpoint. It may
suit one problem situation but be inappropriate for another place
where a building is expected to stand out in marked contrast to
its context. At other times aesthetic issues may not be included in
the criteria, either because they are less relevant or because the
sponsor prefers that such judgments be left, unconditionally, to

Jurors Thomas Hodne, David Stea and Cynthia Weese discuss the
evaluative criteria with the adviser, Jeffrey Ollswang and Harvey Sher-
man, the project director and sponsor's representative. (New American
House Competition, Minneapolis College of Art and Design.)

the expertise of the jury. In most cases, highly subjective issues,
Hke aesthetics, should be included in the evaluative criteria only
if the sponsor wants the issue emphasized by jurors and com-
petitors.

Any formal criteria must be reviewed and approved by the ju-
rors. The jury should agree, in writing, to regard these criteria as
their highest priority, but they should also be given full authority
to apply additional criteria as they see fit; that is their principal
value as experts. The criteria and the nature of the jurors' agree-
ment, should be communicated to competitors in the program
document. In this way, the criteria can be used by good designers
to guide their work in the desired direction.

The adviser's task is to narrow the potential range of criteria to
the major issues which require the jury's judgment — as op-
posed to issues which should be included as programmatic re-
quirements. Consider, for example, a competition in which the
expected construction cost of the building is a critical issue. In an
invited competition, designers might be required to submit a cost
estimate in a prescribed format, which could then be reviewed
for its reliability by an outside consultant hired by the sponsor. In
this case there would be no need for a separate cost criterion
applied by the jurors since they need not make any judgments
about the cost. In an open competition, however, it is impractical
to require or review the reliability of cost estimates.

In these situations a separate criterion might be included, such as
the apparent cost efficiency of the building as interpreted by the jurors.
This cannot guarantee that the actual cost will be acceptable, but
it will encourage good designers (and obligate the jurors) to
consider cost efficiency as an important issue.

Another way to approach hard-to-measure issues such as cost
containment is to develop surrogate measures or tests. For exam-
ple, building size limits might be used as a substitute measure of
cost limits. The adviser and sponsor must decide if such a mea-
sure would be reliable. If it is, then a building size limit (along
with presentation of the appropriate information in the submis-
sions) could be included as a program requirement or recommen-
dation which would be verified by the adviser. If it is a require-
ment then no judgment by the jury is needed. If, instead, it is a
program recommendation, then an additional criterion might be
useful, such as the apparent cost-efficiency of the design and the degree
to which it conforms to the recommended size limitations.

The adviser checks a submission for two jurors during the New Ameri-
can House Competition, Minneapolis College of Art and Design.

Criteria ought to be grouped into priorities. There may be two or
three primary criteria and several secondary criteria. This gives
jurors and competitors a sense of the relative importance of the
issues. This ranking process should not be pushed so far as to
suggest quantitative weights for each criterion. Two or three
general levels of priority are sufficient and preferable. More de-
tailed or quantitative weighting techniques are commonly used
in government contracts where competing responses to a re-
quest-for-proposals may be evaluated using point scoring sys-
tems. This level of precision is inappropriate for criteria used by
competition jurors, who must combine many qualitative expert
judgments, only some of which may be evident in the stated
criteria.

5.4 TESTING THE PROGRAM: THE PROBLEM,
THE CRITERIA AND THE PRESENTATION

The written definition of the design problem, the evaluative
criteria and the presentation guidelines ought to be tested to
discover if there are any significant flaws. The documents should
be tested before the final draft of the text to allow enough time to
make any needed modifications.

Figure 5.8 THE PROBLEM, THE CRITERIA AND THE
PRESENTATION

THE PROGRAM

OTHE DESIGN PROBLEM y\ EVALUATIVE CRITERIA y\.
< — o — >o

THE DESIGNERS PRESENTATION RULES THE JURORS

SOLUTIONS

THE WINNERS

Figure 5.9 CHECKLIST FOR SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION

Supporting program documents are essential in site-specific competitions and in
competitions which offer design commissions or contracts. This information often
includes:

1. Site Data and
Environmental
Issues

In site-specific competitions the designers should be
given a substantial graphic and technical description
of the area. This is particularly important when the
competitors are remote from the competition site and
are not likely to make a site visit. This information
includes:

a. topographical maps, site sections and aerial photographs

b. property boundaries and the location of services and
utilities

c. soil conditions

d. climatological data

e. drawings and photographs of:

• the competition site

• existing building conditions on the site

• adjacent buildings and the surrounding area.

2. Regulatory and
Legal Issues

Supporting documents should include applicable
legal and legislative constraints such as:

a. zoning regulations

b. building codes (local and national)

c. property and land ownership

d. applicable local ordinances regarding historic
preservation, design review procedures and energy,
daylighting or air quality regulations.

100

Figure 5.9 Continued

3. Social Issues Sponsors should provide competitors with

information concerning relevant social conditions,
including:

a. a description of potential user groups
h. relevant historical information about the site and
surrounding area

c. the characteristics of any population groups adjacent to or
near the site

d. the concerns and characteristics of relevant special interest
groups

e. relevant public opinions concerning the design problem
and potential use of the solutions.

4. Economic Issues Of particular interest to competitors are relevant

economic conditions such as:

a. a project budget (planned or approved)

b. the sponsor's financing plans and arrangements

c. building cost data specific to the design problem

d. relevant marketing and feasibility studies.

5. Technical Issues

The sponsor should also include data concerning
technical issues, such as:

a. structural or energy related constraints

b. appropriate material specifications

c. relevant construction methods and techniques.

101

One way to test a program is to ask designers (possibly members
of the advisory panel or the jury) to imagine how effective sub-
missions might be developed. Surrogate competitors should be
asked to imagine not only good solutions but a range of solutions
which stretch the limits of the program. This procedure helps
identify objectives which are too vague, constraints which are
too confining, criteria which are poorly worded and presentation
guidelines which may hamper the creativity of good designers.

The adviser or a member of the sponsor's staff should also test
the problem (or at least key parts of the problem) as surrogate
designers. It may be possible to ask college students to act as
competitors and invest one or two weeks in developing submis-
sions that respond to the program. Such procedures are elabo-
rate and time consuming, but are especially valuable with prob-
lems that have numerous, interrelated constraints.

In any case the adviser should test all requirements and recom-
mendations to see if they can be easily interpreted and applied,
and to estimate how much time will be needed during the jury-
ing process to check each solution for compliance with the rules.
The goal is to ensure that all components of the program docu-
ment facilitate both the development of good solutions and the
ability of the jurors to understand, evaluate and compare solu-
tions quickly and efficiently.

5.5 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Competitions and conventional design processes require the col-
lection of a wide variety of information surrounding the design
problem. In many cases competitors need information about the
visual character of a place, the cultural character of the people
who will use the design product or building, climatological data,
economic analyses or legal constraints. Supporting information
helps not only the designers, but also the adviser, jurors, mem-
bers of advisory panels and the sponsor's staff who may not be
familiar with all the data. Figure 5.9 contains a checklist of con-
tents for supplementary information.

Three issues — familiarity, availability, and rcleimrice — have to be
balanced when selecting and providing supporting materials.
Information which is already familiar to designers, easily located
elsewhere or not essential to the understanding of the problem
may be referenced but not actually included in the supplemen-

102

tary materials. The safeguard against omitting important infor-
mation is the question and answer period during which addi-
tional relevant materials requested by competitors can be
collected and distributed.

Supplementary documents may include written information,
quantitative data, photographs, drawings and other graphic ma-
terials. In site-specific competitions, designers are frequently
given a base map of the site and in some cases obliged to use this
base drawing to illustrate their solution. This facilitates the com-
parison of solutions by the jury.

No competitor should have an advantage over another by virtue
of restricted access to supporting information. There are un-
avoidable exceptions, of course, such as competitors who live
near the competition site and can gain additional knowledge
about the site more easily than distant competitors. Such excep-
tions make it all the more important to include comprehensive
supplementary information for all competitors.

Supporting information may be provided at designer briefings
for invited competitions and to finalists in two-stage competi-
tions. In these situations the adviser and sponsor may distribute
new information before, during or after collective meetings with
competitors. If, for example, the competitors are going to tour a
competition site, then they should all be given a comprehensive
list of issues to be examined as they view the site and its sur-
rounds. Moreover, as noted in Chapter Four, when face-to-face
dialogue occurs between the competitors and the adviser, spon-
sor or jurors, then all parties should be given a transcript of the
discussion.

103

During the initial round of decision-making jurors may work individ-
ually recording their observations to be used in subsequent discus-
sions. (New American House Competition, Minneapolis College of
Art and Design.)

104

CHAPTER SIX

THE JURYING PROCESS

The jurying process is a period of intense deliberation which
must be completed in a limited amount of time, normally several
days. The months of waiting come to an end and winners are
selected. The event has the drama of an athletic tournament or
courtroom trial.

The jurying process is a combination of several activities. The
submissions must be unwrapped, examined and displayed. The
jury deliberations may include a variety of working meetings as
well as social ceremonies. During their deliberations, the jurors
may request that solutions be moved, discarded or called back
for reconsideration. After the winners are selected, there should
be a public announcement and a press conference which in-
cludes the jury's comments. The solutions should be photo-
graphed and labeled for public display.

Facilities for jurying should be reserved at the time the competi-
tion is announced and the awards ceremonies should be planned
several weeks before the jurying begins. The sponsor and adviser
must be prepared to announce the winners, assess the results
and make a smooth transition into post-competition activities.

6.1 INITIATION OF THE PROCESS

The general sequence of the events is outlined in Figure 6.1. The
deliberations normally begin in closed meetings between the
adviser and the jurors. The issues discussed at this time include
the evaluative criteria, selection procedures, competition rules
and the responsibilities and authority of the jurors, adviser and
sponsor.

105

Figure 6.1 JURY PREPARATION

Prior to the jury deliberations, the sponsor and
professional adviser may:

Prior Discussions

the

a. conduct an initial meeting with the jury chairperson

b. hold confidential meetings with individual jurors

c. convene a formal group meeting including all parties
involved in the jurying process.

These meetings provide the opportunity to review:

a. the goals of the competition and evaluate criteria

b. any potential problems with the process

c. the schedule for the deliberations.

Initiating the For the purposes of facilitating an efficient and

Deliberations successful jurying process, early discussions should

review and clarify:

a. The responsibility and authority of the jurors, the jury
chairperson (if any), the sponsor and the adviser

b. the objectives, evaluative criteria, presentation rules,
program constraints, questions and answers (all
documents and relevant materials should be readily
available)

c. procedural matters such as

• selection of a jury chairperson

• voting procedures

• disqualification of entries

d. additional procedures, if any, whereby jurors may be
interviewed by the press such as:

• allowing interviews only during a jury recess

• prohibiting the press from being present during the
deliberations or in the jury area

• directing all initial inquiries from the press to the
adviser or other staff members

e. new circumstances which have developed during the
course of the competition but which were unknown to
competitors and should therefore not be considered
by jurors as significant factors in evaluating the
submissions.

106

Jurors often discuss additional criteria and design viewpoints
not noted in the program. The adviser should remind jurors that
any recent changes in the problem situation which were un-
known to the competitors must not influence their decision, and
that jurors may not disregard any of the programmatic require-
ments or evaluative criteria which have been given to the com-
petitors. During these initial discussions it is also advisable to
review the answers to the competitors' questions, emphasizing
any issues which have officially altered the original program.

Sometimes the adviser or sponsor meet with each juror privately
before the whole jury is assembled. Where one dominant per-
sonality is expected to lead the jury, a meeting between this
leader, the adviser and the sponsor is the appropriate starting
point. Regardless of whether there is one jury leader, all jurors
should have an opportunity to express their concerns to the
adviser or sponsor in a confidential, candid manner.

The beginning of the jurying process should be treated as a
ceremonial occasion. On the evening before the formal delibera-
tions, there may be a private dinner for the jurors and principal
staff. This occasion helps establish friendly relationships, and is
an appropriate time for sponsors to emphasize their commitment
to the competition and its results.

6.2 FACILITIES

The physical facilities for the jury are an important issue (Figure
6.2). A particular problem, especially in the case of large compe-
titions, is locating a space which is big enough to handle all the
submissions, well lighted, comfortable and secure. These spatial
requirements are substantial, which is why juries sometimes
convene in airplane hangars, armories, large warehouses, vacant
exhibition spaces, or schools and colleges.

Unpacking, mounting and rearranging submissions, storing
them and keeping them secure for several days is a common
logistical problem. In a large open competition, the adviser may
have to examine, exhibit and repeatedly rearrange over one
thousand boards. In this type of competition, the sponsor ought
to provide a crew of people (often the sponsor's staff members or
local college students) who will assist the adviser during the
entire jurying process.

107

Figure 6.2 JURY FACILITIES

The spiatial requirements for a jurying process may be enormous, depending upon the
number, type and size of the submissions.

1. Display Room

2. Display
Techniques

The number and size of the submissions should be
estimated as soon as possible in order to:

a. estimate the amount of space required (the space may be a
large meeting hall, gymnasium, hangar, gallery or
similarly large space)

b. ensure the availability of the necessary space (this may
require advance reservation, rental or fees)

c. evaluate and select the most efficient method in which to
arrange the submissions (this may involve renting tables
or other equipment)

d. provide sufficient, secure storage for the submissions.

When displaying the submissions the following
issues should be considered:

lighting (of the jurying space and the submissions — day
and night)

flexibility (allowing for continual rearrangement of the
submissions during the elimination process)
circulation (space between the rows of submissions)
viewing distances (to facilitate individual and group
viewing of the submissions).

3. Conference In addition to the display area, there should be an

Room adjoining room or a separate space designated solely

as a conference room for:

a. confidential jury deliberations, discussions and voting
procedures

b. informal conversation and relaxation.

108

Figure 6.2 Continued

4. Security

The sponsor must provide security for the
submissions:

a. when they are received

b. after the entries are unwrapped, but before the jurying

c. during the jurying, when the submissions are being
removed or rearranged

d. after the jurying

e. after the announcement and press conferences are
completed.

5. Storage

Submissions may require a substantial amount of
storage space:

a. prior to the jury deliberations (especially if this is the
space where the adviser unwraps and examines the
submissions)

b. after the jury deliberations (to allow for the separation
and cataloguing of solutions).

6. Additional
Provisions

In addition to the above arrangements, there should
be provisions for:

a. food and beverage service during deliberations

b. comfortable, flexible seating and other furnishings to
facilitate review of submissions, discussion, writing and
drawing

c. telephone access.

109

The jury area must be private and secured from intrusion by the
general pubHc and press, especially during critical deliberations
and voting. This encourages free and open debate among the
jurors. Occasionally local laws require open, public meetings for

/jd

^^^H^ 4r ^^1

r M

^^^ / J^

^^9

The adviser and the project director discuss the preparations for dis-
playing the drawings for the jury in New American House Competi-
tion, Minneapolis College of Art and Design.

110

government sponsored competitions. Such regulations should
be checked and the jurors informed of these requirements be-
forehand.

A typical jury day may involve twelve to sixteen hours of intense
discussion and debate. Under these conditions, failure to pro-
vide for the physical and psychological comfort of the jury can
reduce the jury's effectiveness. A separate room, adjoining the
jury space, should be available for informal conferences, meet-
ings and relaxation. Comfortable seating should be provided as
well as food and beverages. Jurors will also need access to tele-
phones for business and travel arrangements. Hotel accommo-
dations should be convenient and conducive to additional infor-
mal discussions between the jurors and the adviser.

6.3 PRESENTING THE SUBMISSIONS

All solutions must be initially checked by the adviser and an
identifying number placed on each submission. If the submissions
consist of more than one board, a number should be placed on
each board. Following this, the submissions are usually mounted
and displayed in an exhibition format. The jury then moves from
entry to entry. This method facilitates comparative analysis and
allows jurors to work individually, in pairs or collectively as a
group. In larger competitions, forms or tabulation sheets are
sometimes prepared for jurors to use when recording their re-
sponse to each numbered entry.

After the first or second round of evaluation, the jury usually
wants to rearrange the solutions, by removing those they have
initially rejected, and regrouping the remaining solutions. Juries
may want solutions rearranged into categories or left loose for
the jurors to peruse and shift as they choose.

Eliminated submissions must be carefully removed and stored
securely. It is especially important to keep track of solutions
which have been momentarily eliminated. A jury may wish to
recall a solution for reconsideration, or select it later for the
purpose of publication or exhibition.

6.4 JURY CHAIRPERSON

One juror is generally selected to serve as chairperson for the
deliberations. This should be arranged previous to the jurying
process with the agreement of the individual jurors. Alternative-

Ill

ly, the jurors may decide at their first meeting to select one of
their members as the chairperson.

The role of the jury chairperson must be defined precisely. There
is a major difference between a chair who is an opinion leader
and one whose sole responsibility is maintaining an ethical and
efficient decision-making process. The latter role is more com-
mon (refer to Section 2.5c in Chapter Two). Normally, the chair-
person is someone with previous experience in design competi-
tions, who fosters congenial but disciplined procedures required
for successful juries.

6.5 DISQUALIFICATION

The adviser must carefully review all submissions to ensure that
they conform to the published requirements and are eligible for
an award (Figure 6.3). This should occur before the jurors begin
their deliberations. In large open competitions, however, deter-
mining every submission's conformance to all program require-
ments may be too time-consuming to complete before the jury
begins. There are also cases in which violations of program re-

During an informal break, jurors peruse the entries individually for
the New American House Competition, Minneapolis College of Art
and Design.

112

quirements are inadvertently overlooked during the initial ex-
amination. Consequently, the adviser must have the authority to
disqualify solutions at any time during the deliberations. In fact,
it is usually wise for the adviser to conduct a final technical
review to assure conformance to requirements just prior to the
jury's final designation of awards. Such procedures can be con-
troversial, but they are nevertheless essential.

The adviser should present all ineligible submissions to the jury
and the reasons for their disqualifications. Jurors may review
these submissions to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of the
adviser's decision, but they cannot overrule the decision. Un-
like courts of law and organized competitive sports, there is no
routine process for appealing the adviser's judgment regarding
ineligibility or disqualification.

Disqualified submissions must not be juried for an official award,
regardless of their merits or the protestations of jurors. The
adviser is acting on behalf of all those competitors who met the
requirements and would, in effect, be cheated if their chances of
an award were unfairly decreased by allowing a non-conform-
ing design to be considered.

-^^^^

The jury chairperson, Michael Brill, leads a discussion with the other
jurors during the New American House Competition, Minneapolis
College of Art and Design.

113

Figure 6.3 DISQUALIFICATION PROCEDURES
AND OPTIONS

1. Authority

Prior to the jury deliberations, the disqualification
procedures should be carefully reviewed by the
sponsor, jury and adviser. Emphasis should be given
to:

a. the responsibility and authority of the adviser

b. the rules regarding disqualifications

c. the legal and ethical implications

d. the type and severity of the consequences.

2. Disqualification
Prior to Jury
Deliberations

Every attempt should be made to discover
disqualified submissions prior to the beginning of the
jury deliberations. Such disqualifications are usually
the result of:

3. Disqualification
During the Jury
Deliberations

a. non-compliance with programmatic or presentation
requirements

b. failure to meet stated deadlines such as post-marked times
for receipt or mailing of submissions

c. eligibility, anonymity or registration violations.

In some instances, reasons for disqualification are
discovered during the jurying deliberations. When
this occurs:

the reasons for disqualification should be recorded

the record must contain the person who discovered the

violation

the submission should be "tagged" by the adviser (e.g. a

visual marker placed on the entry)

it must be removed from those submissions eligible for an

award.

4. Disqualification
Prior to
Designating
Winners

Just prior to the jury's final decisions the adviser
should recheck tentative winners for compliance with
rules and requirements. In large competitions with
hundreds of entries, the adviser may have postponed
checking some items until the jury has narrowed the
field of potential winners. The adviser is most likely
to do this when checking requirements is particularly
time-consuming, as is the case with:

a. spatial or volumetric limitations

b. specific legal or zoning regulations

c. detailed cost-estimates

d. construction requirements.

114

Figure 6.3 Continued

5. Post- Award
Disqualification

6. Jury

Responsibility
and Authority

7. Legal Counsel

In rare instances when a winning solution must be
disqualified for non-compliance after announcing the
awards, the sponsor should have planned
contingencies for:

a. contacting or re-empanelling the competition jury for
their assistance

b. shifting the prize winners (e.g., moving third place to
second place if second place was disqualified)

c. vacating the prize entirely and reallocating the awards

d. informing all competitors of the disqualification and the
consequences.

The jury's responsibility concerning disqualification
is usually limited to:

a. reviewing the adviser's decisions for accuracy (e.g.,
reviewing the precision of any measurements)

b. reviewing the precision and clarity of rules and
requirements and noting significant ambiguities.

Under no circumstances, however, may the jury:

a. change or alter the stated rules and requirements

b. re-introduce a submission as eligible for an award after it
has been legitimately disqualified.

In some cases the jury is given the authority to
recognize the merits of a disqualified or ineligible
submission by:

a. designating the solution for an unannounced "special
merit" award (or similar title)

b. selecting a solution only for the purposes of exhibition or
publication.

In some cases legal counsel should be obtained to:

a. review the disqualification rules, and their consequences
prior to publication of the competition program

b. review the competitors' questions and proposed answers
regarding disqualification procedures

c. assist in any deliberations concerning post-award
disqualifications.

115

One of the more disconcerting situations arises when a competi-
tor breaks the rule of anonymity by inadvertently including ini-
tials or other identifying marks on a submission. In some compe-
titions, if such markings are discovered prior to the jury, the
adviser may have the authority to remove or conceal the identify-
ing marks. If, on the other hand, indications of authorship are
discovered during the jurying process, the submission should be
disqualified.

In rare situations when the adviser considers an infraction to be
insignificant and to have provided no substantial advantage, the
penalty of non-compliance may be less severe than total disquali-

The adviser, Jeffrey Ollswang, responds to a question raised by jury
chairperson, Michael Brill, during the second round of eliminations
for the New American House Competition, Minneapolis College of
Art and Design.

116

fication. The final authority for making this judgment must clear-
ly rest with the adviser, and not the jury. Under these circum-
stances the jury may be allowed to recognize the merits of a
disqualified submission in a variety of ways. These may include
an improvised award, certificate of merit or other form of recog-
nition (but not an official prize.) When this occurs, the caption or
designation ineligible for award should be included. Such discre-
tionary authority should be allowed only if it has been stated in
the program documents.

In some instances, the jury also has the authority to vacate an
award or declare ties among solutions. The jury often has the
right to recognize any solution regardless of violations of re-
quirements, by mentioning it in the jury report or by recom-
mending it for publication or exhibition. Collectively, these dis-
cretionary powers are sufficient to handle most unpredictable
circumstances. It must be emphasized, however, that there are
no justifiable reasons to give official awards or prizes to ineligible
submissions.

6.6 VOTING PROCEDURES

Jurors should be asked to agree to some method of selection at
the start of deliberations. Prior consensus regarding the method
of selection is an important technique for making the procedures
more efficient.

The adviser may suggest several kinds of voting procedures for
the jury's consideration (Figure 6.4). However, it is normally the
responsibility of the jury chairperson to propose the voting pro-
cedures. Given the intense nature of the jurying process it may
be wise to discuss these procedures before the formal delibera-
tions. Majority rule is frequently considered only as a last resort.
In this case, an odd-numbered jury is preferable, so that a deci-
sion by majority vote is clearly possible.

6.7 RECORD KEEPING

Some method of recording the deliberations should be planned
prior to the jurying. Photographic, video and sound recordings
or stenographic transcripts of the process are especially helpful
for archival and post-competition purposes. Recording the ju-
rors' comments about the range of solutions and the rationale for
their choices is useful for press releases, public announcements,
exhibits and publications.

117

Figure 6.4 VOTING AND SELECTION PROCEDURES

The following procedures apply primarily to large, open and anonymous competitions.

1. General Voting procedures should be established by the jury

but, in any case, the adviser should ensure that:

a. a careful record is made of all voting
h. all jurors see all the submissions at least once
c. jury comments about the solutions are recorded
throughout the jurying process.

2. First Round Generally the first round of voting eliminates clearly

weak or unsuccessful solutions. Typically, during this
first "cut":

a. voting is anonymous

b. votes are positive (i.e., jurors vote for "retaining a
submission for discussion" rather than rejecting it)

c. jurors are not be obligated to present their reasons for
their votes.

Following this vote any submission is usually
eliminated if:

a. it has no positive votes

b. it has insufficient positive votes (e.g., a submission that
has only 1 out of 5 positive votes).

To avoid eliminating truly superior solutions, each
juror should have the privilege of selecting one, or a
few favorites for the next round of discussion. This
helps avoid early controversy, and protects
competitors from being eliminated capriciously.

3. Alternate First In some cases, the following is an appropriate
Round Procedure alternative procedure for the first round:

a. the jurors briefly view all the solutions

b. the jurors discuss the evaluative criteria and agree upon
the basis for retaining or eliminating solutions during the
first round review

c. the solutions are divided so that individual jurors or
teams are given roughly equal numbers of submissions to
review (e.g., each of five jurors reinews one fifth of the
entries: two teams each reinew half the entries)

d. individuals or teams reiuezv their assigned entries and
make initial recommendations to the entire jury

e. the jury reviews and approves these recommendations
collectively, but each juror retains the right to advance
automatically a few famrites to the next round.

118

Figure 6.4 Continued

4. Intermediate During intermediate rounds all rejected submissions
Round should be removed and the remaining submissions
Procedures should be consolidated. Options for voting

procedures are:

a. continue first round voting procedures by casting ballots
for retaining submissions for discussions (i.e., retain any
solution receiving a given number of votes; e.g., 2 out of 5
or 4 out of 7)

b. allow each juror to select a few favorite solutions for
further consideration

c. have the entire jury briefly discuss each submission and
seek a consensus about retaining or rejecting that
submission

d. give jurors, at the end of each intermediate round, the
opportunity to reconsider rejected solutions.

5. Intermediate Intermediate round deliberations may produce a
Round range of preliminary decisions such as:
Designations

a. a solution is rejected, but recommended for exhibition and
publication

b. a solution is tentatively rejected but may be reconsidered

c. a solution is retained to be checked by the adviser for
compliance with requirements

d. a solution is retained, forwarded as a potential honorable
mention (or special award) but not as a candidate for a
major award

e. a solution is retained and forwarded to the final round as
a candidate for a major award.

6. Final Round Final voting and selection procedures should be
Designations established and approved by the jury beforehand. In

many cases there will be a consensus regarding:

a. those solutions which deserve awards of merit or honorable
mention (but not a major award)

b. those solutions which should receive a major award.

When no consensus can be reached, formal ballots
may be used to rank finalists for major awards.

When the jury is deadlocked, it may be necessary to
modify the prizes (e.g., declare a tie for second place).
Alternatively, the jury chairperson may have the
authority to break tie votes or devise other procedures
to end a deadlock.

119

Figure 6.5 NOTIFYING THE WINNERS

1. Initial Contact

Previous to any public announcement of the
competition results, the sponsor, adviser or the jury
chairperson should notify the winners by telephone.

2. Information from During the initial telephone conversation the
the Winners following information should be obtained for

subsequent public announcements and press releases:

a. the full names, addresses and telephone numbers of all
winning competitors (this is particularly important in the
case of team submissions)

b. biographical data including education, professional
affiliations, experience and current status

c. personal responses to the competitioji and the results.

3. Information for
the Winners

The sponsor or the adviser should be prepared to give
the winners information such as:

instructions for responding to press inquiries

the time and date of the public announcement and any

restrictions regarding prior disclosure of the azvards by the

winners

details of the award and other post-competition activities

(e.g., contract negotiations)

the name and telephone number of the sponsor or

representative who the winners may contact for further

information

arrangements, if appropriate, for inviting the winning

competitors to public announceinerits , ceremonies or press

conferences.

4. Formal The winners should be informed that they will

Notification receive formal notification of the jury's selection by

letter or telegram. The adviser should be prepared to
send this notification immediately after the sponsor
has been informed of the results.

120

Reliable records will assist in the preparation of the final jury
report and other narratives in which it is important to match a
juror's comments to a specific solution. Cogent, concise com-
ments made during animated discussions are difficult to recon-
struct without the use of recording devices.

6.8 OPENING THE ENVELOPE

When the jury reaches its final decision, there is a sense of
excitement. This moment is only the beginning of the next phase of
post-competition activities. In the emotional excitement, there is
often a tendency to overlook some important tasks which need
to be addressed immediately. Figure 6.5 lists the range of activi-
ties that occur, or begin, just after the names of the winners are
revealed.

The first task is to notify all the winners, including those with
honorable mentions and awards of merit. In anonymous compe-
titions, the information needed to contact winners is contained
in the sealed envelopes attached to each submission, or on the
registration forms which may have been held by the adviser,
separately. There may be several designers to be notified for each
solution. Initial telephone calls must be followed by formal let-
ters or telegrams sent to each of the winning designers.

An initial conversation with each winner fulfills several func-
tions. It gives the winners an opportunity to enjoy the elation
and collect their thoughts while giving the adviser and sponsor
an opportunity to prepare for upcoming events and inquiries.
The first place winner will probably be contacted and inter-
viewed by the press. A winner's response to such inquiries may
have a significant impact on the post-competition activities, es-
pecially when further development or implementation of the
winning design solution is a matter of public interest.

Notifying the winners also gives the adviser and other staff the
opportunity to collect information for press releases, confer-
ences, the awards ceremony, and other events that follow the
jury's decision. This information includes biographical descrip-
tions and professional activities of the winners, their reactions to
the competition and commentary on their design solutions.

There is considerable pressure to complete these pleasant but
necessary tasks immediately. Depending upon the number and

121

Figure 6.6 AWARDS CEREMONY (AND PRESS
CONFERENCE)

1. Prior Preparation

Plans should be made before the jurying process as to
how the general public and press will be informed of
the competition results.

2. Press Release The sponsor and the adviser should prepare press

releases for public announcements and the awards
ceremonies. The press releases should contain:

a. information about the winning solutions and their
designers

b. the reactions of the sponsor and any immediate or long-
term plans for using the results (e.g., exhibits, a fund-
raising campaign, contract negotiations or construction)

c. jury comments (general and specific)

d. reactions and comments of the winning designers

e. abstracts of the competition prograyn and relevant
documents

f. additional photographs and graphic materials relevant to
the competition.

3. Accuracy

Special care must be given to accuracy, especially in
regard to:

a. the attribution of the authorship of all winning or publicly
exhibited solutions

b. jurors' general comments about the competition and
specific comments about individual solutions

c. interviews by reporters with jurors and competitors

d. publication or broadcast of photographs of the winning
submissions.

122

location of winners, collecting most of this information will re-
quire one or two days. It is unlikely that all the needed informa-
tion will be gathered in just one conversation.

6.9 THE AWARDS CEREMONY

Most competitions, especially large national competitions,
should have an awards ceremony accompanied by a press con-
ference and temporary display of the winning entries (Figure
6.6). If at all possible, this event should occur within one or two
days of the jury's decision. The precise timing depends on sever-
al factors. In some competitions the sponsor would like the first
place or other winning designers present at the ceremony; pro-
viding a more interesting story for journalists and the media. If
the awards ceremony is delayed too long, it becomes a less timely
or interesting event and therefore less newsworthy.

The timing of the awards ceremony also depends on whether the
jury chairperson or other jury members can be present to explain
first-hand their decision-making process and the rationale for
their selections. Another factor governing the awards ceremony
is the staff effort required to produce press releases and organize
the display of winning solutions — one or two days is short
notice for this type of activity unless there has been prior prep-
aration.

Another issue that may influence the awards ceremony is the
sponsor's reaction to the results. Typically, sponsors view the
results enthusiastically and wish to maximize public awareness
of the awards. In some cases, however, sponsors unfairly delay
the awards ceremony because they become overly cautious or
react adversely to some aspect of the winning design or perhaps,
to the designer. These may be legitimate concerns, but they are
not valid reasons to delay or minimize the publicity surrounding
the awards. Publicity, by itself, is one of the principal rewards,
especially for competitors who intend to use the results to pro-
mote their professional ambitions. Consequently, the timing of
the awards ceremony should be planned to meet both the spon-
sor's and the winners' needs.

The awards ceremony frequently serves as a press conference.
Questions and interviews usually occur directly following the
remarks by the sponsor, adviser, jurors and winners. If, however.

123

Figure 6.7 SPONSOR BRIEFING

1. Procedure

The sponsor should be informed of the jury's
recommendations immediately after the jury's final
designations. This is normally the responsibility of
the adviser. This initial briefing session should:

a. occur prior to any public announcement of the
competition results

b. include only the sponsor, adviser and, if possible, the jury
chairperson or a designated representative of the jury.

2. Contents

The adviser or jury representative should present to
the sponsor:

a. a thorough review of all winning solutions

b. the rationale for the jury's selections and appropriate
commentary

c. any potential difficulties that might occur in using the
winning solutionis) as intended.

During this briefing session the sponsor and adviser
should also review:

a. the schedule of post-competition activities

b. preparations for an awards ceremony or press conference.

3. Additional
Reviews

The sponsor may wish to seek additional advice
regarding the competition results, prior to any public
announcements. This may include a review of the
winning solutions by:

a. advisory panel members

b. public officials

c. cost estimators

d. engineers

e. local design professionals

124

the awards ceremony is delayed or if there is no awards ceremo-
ny, then a separate press conference should be held as soon as
possible following the jury.

Inquiries from journalists may begin during the jurying process.
The adviser and sponsor should prepare as much press material
as is possible just prior to the jury deliberations. The final press
release should include an abbreviated program, the names and
backgrounds of the winners, jurors and sponsor. The press re-
lease is an opportunity for the sponsor to announce the next
steps in the project. Frequently this is the most newsworthy
item. The winning solutions must be labeled carefully. Embar-
rassing errors often occur due to incomplete or incorrect attribu-
tions of the work. Occasionally, background information about
other competitions and related projects is included in press re-
leases.

In some cases, a non-winning solution may attract more atten-
tion from the press due not to its design merits, but because it
appears photogenic or provides a more interesting story. It is the
winners who deserve the spotlight and it is most unfair if they
receive less recognition while other designers (whose work was
not judged superior) receive greater acclaim because it makes a
better picture or a better story. While the press probably should
be granted access to non-winning solutions, it is advisable to
delay the release of information about such solutions until the
initial excitement has ended (several weeks to a few months).
This protects both the sponsor and the winning designers.

6.10 SPONSOR BRIEFINGS

The sponsor has to make several decisions as to how to announce
and use the competition results as soon as the jury is concluded.
In most cases, there should be one or two planned briefings
between the adviser and sponsor immediately following the ju-
ry's decision (Figure 6.7). This can minimize the lead time re-
quired for the awards ceremony and still fulfill the sponsor's
needs to review the results.

Sponsors may require assistance from the adviser or others in
understanding the merits and implications of the winning solu-
tion(s) and its designer(s). This is especially true for competi-
tions which will result in the awarding of a design commission or
contract for design-build or design-develop projects. Even in

125

Figure 6.8 JURY REPORT (OR CATALOGUE)

1. Prior Preparation

2. First Draft

Plans for the jury report and other post-competition
publications should be prepared before the jurying.

The initial draft of the jury report may be authored
completely, or in part by:

a. the jury chairperson (or designated juror)

b. the adviser

c. the sponsor's staff

3. Review and The content of the report and commentary should be

Approval reviewed and approved by all of the following:

a. the jury

b. the adviser

c. the sponsor

4. Narrative
Contents

A comprehensive jury report should include:

a summary of the competition goals, objectives and, in

particular, the design challenge

a full description of all the competition winners and

comments from all the jurors

the process and rationale used in selecting winners

jury comments regarding the overall competition.

5. Graphic Content For post-competition publications, the sponsor should:

6. Supplemental
Information

a. provide a comprehensive photographic record of all
winning solutions

b. provide additional photographs of solutions recommended
by the jury for exhibition and publication

c. reproduce relevant portions of the program

d. record any models which were used by the winners.

It is also useful to keep a record of post-competition
reports and publicity which may be incorporated into
catalogues or other documents. This includes:

a. newspaper and magazine articles about the competition

b. commentaries by public officials, design professionals,
competitors and special interest groups

c. reports concerning the competition results prepared by the
sponsor's staff, government agencies, consultants or other
outside observers.

126

competitions for promotional or educational ideas, the sponsor
needs time to analyze the results.

Sponsor briefings can be as intense as the jury proceedings. They
should be used to discuss all relevant solutions, answer the
sponsor's questions and consider any new opportunities or po-
tential problems. It may be useful to include members of the jury,
advisory panel or other professionals at these meetings. These
briefings can be expedited if the sponsor (or sponsor's represen-
tative) was present during the jurying process and already has
some familiarity with the competition results.

6.11 THE JURY REPORT

Traditionally the jury report describes the quality and merit of
the submissions as well as the rationale for the final selections.
Jury reports ought to include a summary of the design problem,
the competition process, insights from jurors, the sponsor's ob-
jectives and photographs of the winning solutions. The report
might also discuss how the competition results relate to design
issues in the community or in the profession. Proper recording
and editing of the comments of nationally recognized jurors
increases the educational and historical value of the report. Fig-
ure 6.8 outlines the contents of most jury reports.

The scope and emphasis of the jury report should relate directly
to the sponsor's post-competition objectives and it should look
forward to the next steps in the application of the results. In a
competition for commissions or a design-develop competition,
the report might emphasize the feasibility of the first place solu-
tion or the circumstances under which several winning solutions
might be feasible. In a competition to promote ideas, the report
might emphasize how the winning designs represent a diversity
of concepts or different versions of the same concept.

It is the obligation of the sponsor, the adviser (and perhaps the
chair of the jury) to compile and edit the report. If the jurors are
expected to assist in preparing the report, such obligations
should be included in their contract. In most cases, the jury will
disperse before the report is completed. Consequently, it may be
useful to prepare an outline or partial draft of the report and
request jurors to review it before they leave. The publication of
the report will occur later, but the significant content of the
report will have been decided prior to the jury's departure.

127

Usually the report is sent to all designers who entered the com-
petition, advisory panel members, jurors, staff persons, press
representatives, community leaders and local design profession-
als.

The jury views the solutions as a group — their comments and deci-
sions are recorded by the adviser and the competition staff in the New
American House Competition, Minneapolis College of Art and De-
sign.

128

CHAPTER SEVEN

POST-COMPETITION

ACTIVITIES,

APPLICATIONS AND

IMPLEMENTATION

For most professional designers the phrase implementation of a
competition means the construction of the winning solution. In
practice, however, competition results can be used in many le-
gitimate ways which are intrinsically no less valuable than the
traditional design commission.

Implementing a competition means that the results are being
used for their intended purpose. Applications may range from
scholarly investigations concerning design to the disposition of
land for property development. Successful implementation of
the results requires commitment, resources and expertise. Plan-
ning for implementation is as critical as the initial planning for
the competition.

This chapter considers five principal types of competition out-
comes and their associated post-competition activities. The first
outcome discussed is the traditional post-competition activity of
awarding a design commission. This is followed by another in-
creasingly popular outcome — education and the promotion of ideas.
The third section focuses on using competition results to develop
resources — economic, political or technical resources which can
then help in the actual construction of a project. The fourth type
of post-competition application is one step further than a design
commission — it is a contract for construction resulting from a
design-develop or design- build competition. The fifth and final
type is the use of competition results to develop an archive of
ideas.

129

These five types of outcomes are not mutually exclusive. A com-
petition to generate ideas combines easily with one for the devel-
opment of resources or the creation of an archive. A design-build
competition normally offers design commissions. Consequently,
post-competition plans often involve combinations of these ac-
tivities tailored to the unique needs of the sponsor.

7.1 DESIGN COMMISSIONS

The traditional result of design competitions is a design commis-
sion for the winning entrant, with the expectation that this will
be followed by construction of the winning solution. In practice
there are several ways to link competition results to commissions
and subsequent construction. At one extreme, the competition
documents may guarantee no more than a formal meeting be-
tween the winning designer and the sponsor to discuss options
for future work. At the other extreme the competition docu-
ments may assure a commission for both preliminary design and
the subsequent design development phase, which parallels stan-
dard architectural practice. Figure 7.1 includes a list of issues
related to the award of design commissions.

At the podium, the project director introduces sponsors, jurors and the
adviser at the public announcement of the winning solutions for the
New American House Competition, Minneapolis College of Art and
Design.

130

Figure 7.1 AWARDING DESIGN COMMISSIONS

When awarding design commissions the following issues should be considered:

1. Professional The sponsor should seek assistance from experts who

Assistance can facilitate implementating the results, such as:

a. legal counsel

b. advisory panel members

c. financial experts

d. public officials and agency representatives

e. construction contractors and cost-estimators

f. additional design professionals.

2. Sponsor/Winner
Negotiations

The adviser should be present during post-
competition negotiations and ensure that negotiation
procedures, as described in the program, are followed
by both the sponsor and the designer(s).

3. Failed The competition program should describe the
Negotiations consequences of failed negotiations between the

sponsor and the selected designer(s). For example:

a. the sponsor may have the right to use the ideas from, or to
negotiate with the designers of other solutions

b. the designers may be entitled to additional compensation

c. the sponsor may have the right to publish or reproduce the
winning submissions, but not the right to use the design
ideas for construction of a building.

4. Required The program may require winning designers to
Affiliations affiliate with other design firms, such as:

5. Contract Format

a. firms on a predetermined list approved by the sponsor

b. firms mutually acceptable to both the sponsor and the
winning designers

c. firms which satisfy specified criteria (e.g., firms with local
registration, firms approved for government contracts or
firms with specific design/construction capabilities).

Sponsors may use standard contract forms provided
by professional organizations (e.g., the American
Institute of Architects). It may be necessary to modify
such forms to allow for:

a. affiliations between winners and other design firms

b. contingencies based upon cost estimates of winning
solutions

c. delays due to financial or political contingencies

d. atypical design services (e.g., publication preparation,
fund raising and promotional activities).

131

When awarding a contract for design services, the sponsor
should seek legal advice, even in the simplest cases in which the
standard professional contracts are to be used. Other technical
expertise may be needed to analyze the winning solution and
forecast problems regarding construction, financing and func-
tional attributes. This advice too, should be obtained prior to
awarding the commission. The sponsor, with the adviser, should
plan for whatever technical assistance will be required, from the
outset of the competition.

Several professional design societies such as the American Insti-
tute of Architects, the International Union of Architects and the
Royal Institute of British Architects have guidelines describing
what constitutes an appropriate agreement between the sponsor
and the winner. When the principal competition outcome is a
design commission or contract, the recommendations of these
professional design groups are particularly valuable.

7.1a Negotiations

The first step in awarding a design commission is almost always
a personal meeting between the sponsor and the designer. Ar-
rangements for such a meeting should be made when the winner
is notified. The adviser should be present at this meeting, espe-
cially if post-competition negotiation procedures are noted in
the program documents. Other parties who may be involved in
these meetings include technical experts whose opinions are
desired by either the sponsor or the winning designer.

The intended outcome of the negotiations must be clarified be-
forehand and presented in the program. When the program
documents guarantee a design commission, it should be stated
that once the commission is completed, the sponsor is not obli-
gated to any further service from the competition winner. The
program, however, should never guarantee an offer of a design
commission unless the sponsor has the necessary financial re-
sources and legal authority.

Negotiations in a sponsor-winner relationship are different from
those in a typical client-designer relationship. In a competition,
when negotiations begin both the sponsor and the designer are
familiar with the solution and both know that it has been
deemed a superior design. The shared awareness of an assured,
high quality solution may influence the negotiating position of

132

both the sponsor and winner. In contrast, when conventional
cHent-designer negotiations begin, neither party has a specific
image of the final solution. Even when client-designer negotia-
tions occur after a preliminary design has been completed, that
design has still not been evaluated by jurors as a superior solu-
tion.

Sponsor-winner negotiations do include, however, some of the
issues found in typical client-designer discussions, such as po-
tential design changes, subsequent construction costs and tech-
nical constraints. Sponsors may ask the adviser, jurors or others
about changing portions of the design which appear ill-suited to
the sponsor's needs.

Some negotiations are structured so that if no agreement is
reached, the winner still retains the prize money. When this
occurs, the sponsor may then have the right to open negotiations
with the next highest ranked solution (refer to Figure 1.4). Unfor-
tunately, competition programs often include only a general
statement about awarding a design commission and fail to clarify
the procedures that may lead to commissions with different
designers.

7.1b Ownership of Ideas

In competitions for design commissions, there is a clear intent to
use the submissions for creating a physical product, usually a
building. Consequently, it is particularly important to clarify the
legal ownership of the design idea and the sponsor's right to use
it (refer to Chapter Five). Typically, the sponsor has the right to
use the designer's idea only for the intended competition pro-
ject, and only if proper compensation is awarded to the designer
who should retain ownership of the idea.

Competitions, however, are not completely analogous to a con-
ventional client-designer relationship. The use of competition
submissions for promotional or educational purposes, for exam-
ple, is not an issue considered in standard client-designer rela-
tions.

7.1c Contracts and Contigencies

Contracts for commissions can be as varied in competitions as
they are in professional practice. Designers can receive a flat fee
or be paid on an hourly or percentage basis. The scope of services

133

can be limited, comprehensive or written as a series of contin-
gent contracts. Sponsors should seek expert legal advice in this
regard.

There are several contractual issues which are unique to competi-
tions. In some cases, the prize money is considered payment for
the subsequent design commission. This practice is unfair when
it means that the designer's earlier investment in the submis-
sion, or the subsequent commission is left uncompensated. This
dilemma may be resolved by separating the first-place prize
money into two components; one payment is given outright to
the winner as compensation for the submission, and the remain-
der is given conditionally upon the completion of the negotiated
scope of services.

Another unique aspect of competition commissions concerns the
professional expertise of the winning designer. In anonymous
competitions there is no way to guarantee that the winner will
have all the necessary skills for subsequent design work. Even
when eligibility is restricted to those holding professional cre-
dentials, there is no assurance that the requisite skills will be
found in the winning design team.

There are, however, some contractual arrangements or contin-
gencies that may assure the needed design expertise. For exam-
ple, the competition documents can state that in order to receive
a subsequent design contract (not the cash prize for the submis-
sion), the winning designer or design firm must demonstrate that
they have the minimum requisite skills as described in the program or
that they will affiliate with a firm with proper qualifications prior to
receiving the commission.

In some cases no options are given, and the winner must affiliate
with firms designated by the sponsor. In other instances such
affiliations are subject to negotiations. In the special case of two-
stage competitions, review of designer qualifications and provi-
sions for affiliations may occur at the end of either the first or
second stage. Once again, the program must specify the basic
contingencies for contractual arrangements with the sponsor.

7.2 PROMOTION AND EDUCATION

Most competitions arouse public interest and communication of
the results is desirable. Even when the sponsor's primary goal is
constructing a building, there is almost always a secondary ob-

134

jective involving the communication of ideas. In other instances,
however, the communication of design ideas is not a secondary
issue, but the primary goal of the sponsor.

A competition goal may be to influence public opinion, foster
new design legislation, influence construction practices or im-
prove the knowledge of designers. Post-competition activities
are often intended to educate the design profession or to pro-
mote the use of new design technologies and products. These
competitions may have a valuable, long-term influence on the
attitudes and behavior of the design profession. In such in-
stances the post-competition strategy for education and promo-
tion is the central issue.

Educational and promotional activities include the distribution
of catalogues, exhibitions and materials for professional journals
and magazines. Resources for promotion and education should
be planned and allocated well before the jurying process. Figure
7.2 lists the basic issues for planning promotional and education-
al activities.

7.2a Catalogues

The intended audience for the competition results might include
members of a local design association, community leaders, de-
sign educators, elected officials, philanthropic groups, govern-
ment agencies, investors or the sponsor's business clients. In
addition, all the entrants will want to see the other solutions,
and find out who won and for what reasons. Preparing a cata-
logue is a simple, direct way to satisfy these interests and pro-
mote the sponsor's objectives.

A catalogue should be completed as soon as possible, while
audience interest is at its highest. The adviser typically plays a
major role in preparing the catalogue. Other professional re-
sources which may be needed include graphic designers, pho-
tographers, editors and, in some cases, critics and scholars who
are asked to submit additional material.

Catalogues should include a summary of the program, the win-
ning solutions (including all awards of merit and honorable men-
tions) and the jurors' comments. Other items which will enhance
the value of a catalogue include the sponsor's response, a com-
plete list of those who submitted solutions, and non-winning
solutions that were of interest to the jury and may be intriguing

135

Figure 7.2 POST-COMPETITION PROMOTION
AND EDUCATION

When planning promotional and educational activities, the following issues should be
considered:

1. Professional
Assistance

Sponsors may seek assistance from:

a. media consultants

b. journalists and technical writers

c. graphic designers

d. photographers, film makers

e. public relations consultants.

2. Target Audience

Sponsors should prepare written and graphic
materials which are targeted toward specific
audiences. Preparatory contacts should be made with:

a. local newspapers

b. professional and trade journals

c. television and radio stations

d. academic publications

e. popular magazines.

3. Catalogues and
Exhibits

Successful dissemination of the results usually
includes a catalogue, an exhibit or both. Catalogues
and exhibits should include:

a. the background and history of the competition

b. a program summary, emphasizing the design challenge

c. a description of the sponsor

d. the sponsor's plans for implementation

e. all winning solutions

f. non-winning solutions having meritorious or noteworthy
features

g. a description of the jurors

h. a complete list of the competitors.

In addition, post-competition publications and
exhibits should include at least part of the jury report,
especially:

a. the jurors' general comments about the cotnpetition and
the results

b. specific commentary about the winning solutions

c. comments about any meritorious, but non-winning
solutions.

136

Figure 7.2 Continued

4. Plans for
Exhibits

Plans for exhibiting the competition results should be
developed early in the competition process.
Consideration should be given to:

a. the size and content of the exhibit

b. the use of original drawings or reproductions of some or
all of the submissions

c. potential sites for local exhibits such as:

• museums and galleries

• libraries

• schools and universities

• municipal buildings

• shopping centers

d. the logistics of traveling exhibits, including:

• scheduling

• costs for crating and shipping

• insurance and liability.

5. Photographic Sponsors should ensure that there is a comprehensive

Records record of the competition for educational and archival

purposes. This requires a photographic copy of the
submissions. Consideration should be given to:

a. the location and schedule for the photographic sessions

b. physical facilities and lighting conditions

c. special instructions for the photographers regarding
format, record-keeping or graphic detail.

137

to the intended audience. It is not necessary to include all solu-
tions or to include complete presentations of selected solutions.
Nevertheless, a broad representation of the work increases inter-
est and can serve as an abridged archival record.

The initial costs of printing and distributing a competition cata-
logue can be significant. In most cases the final cost can be offset
by selling the catalogues, although the more effective way to
ensure sufficient production resources is to set aside a portion of
the registration fee solely for the purpose of producing a cata-
logue.

The number of catalogues to be printed may be estimated as
approximately 50% more than the assembled list; which should
include all registrants, jurors, advisory panel members and com-
petition staff in addition to the sponsor's target audience. There
are several groups who will usually request additional copies.
Competitors whose work is shown in the catalogue will probably
want more copies to use for their own promotional purposes.

Joseph Valerio, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

This catalogue of competition results combined comments from the
jury report with the sponsor's observations. It was used to further the
sponsor's goal for developing support and additional resources (Citys-
cape and Environmental Graphics Competition, Milwaukee County,
reforming Arts Center).

138

Design researchers, scholars, Hbraries, and educational institu-
tions frequently request copies. A secondary demand for cata-
logues may occur several months to a year later after the winners
are published in professional journals or shown in traveling
exhibits. It is better to overestimate the needed supply, given the
marginal increase in printing costs, than to underestimate the
number of requests and lose the value of the added communica-
tion of the results.

7.2b Exhibits

Exhibitions are another effective way to present competition
results. Like the catalogue, all winning solutions should be in-
cluded as well as any other work which helps achieve the spon-
sor's educational or promotional goals. Non-winning solutions
obviously receive less prominence in the exhibit than the award
winners. Portions of the jury's report should be condensed,
edited and represented in a manner visually compatible with the
exhibition.

ANATOMY I'JJiim

OF A iSlliiv

COMPETITLON j ^i|l; -

kee s Lakeli

Lawrence Witzling, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

This study was an independent catalogue and analysis of the results of
the Milwaukee Lakefront Planning and Design Competition. It was
used to promote better design and for general public education.

139

The sponsor with the adviser, should plan for the scope, content,
format, location and schedule of the exhibition. Professional
assistance may be required from curators, graphic designers and
others with expertise in preparing exhibits. Submissions must be
handled and mounted carefully, especially if they have substan-
tial value as works of art. Attributions of authorship and credit
for work should be checked carefully, particularly when time
pressures increase the chance of making embarrassing errors.

Most exhibitions are shown at more than one site. At the very
least, there may be two or three locations in the sponsor's home
community where the results will merit broad public exposure.
Exhibit sites include office lobbies, colleges, city halls, court-
houses, museums, galleries, cultural institutions and indoor
shopping centers. More extensive traveling exhibitions, for com-
petitions of national interest, are often sent to different profes-
sional associations, universities and art museums.

Minneapolis College of Art and Design.

The catalogue for the New American House Competition was widely
disseminated to promote better housing design for non-traditional
households and to give added recognition to the sponsor - the Minne-
apolis College of Art and Design.

140

The public views, for the first time, the winning solutions just prior to
the announcement and press conference at the New American House
Competition, Minneapolis College of Art and Design.

The logistics of scheduling, insuring, mounting and shipping
exhibits beyond the sponsor's immediate area, will require addi-
tional resources. When the exhibition includes work of a sub-
stantial artistic value, more specialized assistance will be needed
for proper mounting and handling. Also, higher artistic values
imply higher insurance and shipping costs.

The sponsor should maintain a complete photographic record of
all exhibited submissions as a safeguard against the potential
loss or damage of work. In some cases, photographs rather than
originals, may be a preferable graphic medium for the exhibition.
The size of photographic copies, for example, can be increased or
decreased to suit the requirements of display systems. With
photographs there is less concern for damaged work and the
associated liability insurance.

7.2c Journals and Magazines

The products of competitions may appeal to several different
types of audiences. Sponsors should seek publication of the
results in professional and trade journals, academic journals or

141

more popular magazines that include occasional features on de-
sign. One journal will be interested in emphasizing how the
competition illustrates the attitudes of leading designers, while
another will be more interested in the general nature of the
design problem. Other magazines will emphasize how the com-
petition results relate to community needs and events.

During the course of the competition the adviser or sponsor
should solicit interest from appropriate journals and publishers.
Some editors may request that a writer or photographer be pre-
sent during the jurying process. Such enthusiasm should be
encouraged, but the sponsor must make sure that the press does
not inhibit the jury and that there is no premature or inaccurate
public reporting of results. The sponsor may request the right to
review press reports and articles prior to publication to ensure
accuracy.

The adviser or a professional writer often prepares tailor-made
articles or visual materials on behalf of the sponsor, exclusively
for those publications which suit the sponsor's post-competition
objectives. For other publications, it is useful to prepare a single
comprehensive description of the competition with all program
documents, the jury report, the sponsor's reaction and other
materials likely to be of interest to editors. Visual materials
should be prepared, including easily reproducible photographs
of winning solutions, jury activities and, if applicable, the com-
petition site and its context.

7. Id Other Visual Media

Sponsors have other options for communicating competition
results, including videotapes, films and slide shows. These tech-
niques require special expertise, equipment and resources, but
are particularly useful when presenting the competition process,
as well as the specific results. A narrated videotape, for instance,
might include not only the winning solutions, but in addition a
record of the entire competition, interviews with jurors, and
post-competition activities.

7.3 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Some sponsors would like to construct a winning solution but
lack the necessary resources or authority. Under these circum-
stances a competition for a design commission is unfair and may
be embarrassing, since construction is far from certain. A compe-

142

Figure 7.3 POST-COMPETITION RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT

When the goal of a competition is resource development, the following issues should be
considered:

1. Professional Successful resource development activities often

Assistance require professional services provided by:

a. public relations and advertising firms

b. graphic artists

c. professional lobbyists

d. fund-raising firms.

2. Target Groups
and Individuals

Sponsors should target their requests for resources
and support to specific organizations and individuals,
such as:

a. local or national philanthropic foundations

b. governmental agencies and elected officials

c. major corporations, manufacturers and distributors

d. national design organizations and professional
associations

e. individual private donors

f. editorial boards for newspapers, magazines, radio and
television stations.

3. Fund-Raising The cost of fund-raising campaigns and similar

Activities resource development activities frequently include:

a. administrative and support staff

b. preparing public presentations (e.g., catalogues,
brochures, exhibits and presentations).

c. conducting meetings and presentations for prospective
donors, special interest groups, institutions, agencies and
similar organizations.

As part of fund-raising activities, the sponsor should
develop:

a. a confidential list and survey (if possible) of potential
donors and supporters

b. a list of options for donors and others to consider as the
target of their donation or support

c. plans and opportunities for giving major public
recognition to all individuals and groups who are
supportive.

143

tition to promote a wide range of ideas is also unwise because the
results may be too vague and unfocused. The alternative is to use
post-competition activities specifically for resource develop-
ment. The pragmatic goal is to develop resources so that a good
solution can be built in the future.

The use of competition results for resource development must be
planned from the beginning (Figure 7.3). Presentation require-
ments, the selection of jurors and the definition of the design
problem will all influence the utility of the competition results
for resource development. To plan this type of competition effec-
tively, the sponsor must first define the target audience. This
group often includes local opinion leaders, public officials, foun-
dation directors, business executives and groups that are finan-
cially and politically capable of supporting the desired project.

Reaching a target audience requires a knowledge of fund-raising,
public relations and political lobbying. The tasks involve pre-
senting the competition results and applications in different
formats, each suited to a particular audience. Presentations
might include a brochure sent to potential financial donors, an
executive summary distributed to business leaders and elected
officials, a fifteen minute videotape or slide presentation for
small group meetings, materials for editorial conferences with
newspaper and television executives and an exhibit for promo-
tional events.

After the initial annoucement of the competition results, the
sponsor usually receives responses from the target audience that
will raise new opportunities. Under the most fortuitous circum-
stances, subsequent events will result in the construction of the
winning solution. A more typical, but still desirable outcome
may be hiring the winning designers to develop a whole new
design (rather than their winning solution). In other cases, sub-
sequent resource development activities may lead to redefining
the problem and making a fresh start. Any of these results are
legitimate outcomes for the sponsor.

7.4 DESIGN-BUILD AND
DESIGN-DEVELOP CONTRACTS

In some competitions, all the required resources and authority
are already available, not only for a design commission, but for
the production or construction of the winning solution. This

144

frequently occurs in competitions to construct new buildings,
but may also include the production of a new piece of furniture
or building product. Design-develop competitions are often
used for mixed-use urban developments with residential, com-
mercial, and recreational components that requiring millions of
dollars of investment.

In major design-develop competitions, each entrant may be a
team led by an investor, or a general contractor, where designers
play supporting roles. In this case the teams of competitors will
consist of different disciplines and professions. The problem
description and the entire structure of the competition are usual-
ly oriented toward multiple economic, political and technical
issues with design as only one of the key components. Frequent-
ly an existing board or commission performs the jury function.
When there is an independent jury it normally includes finan-
cial, construction and planning experts as well as sponsor repre-
sentatives. There may not even be a design expert on the jury —
instead, a designer may be hired as a technical adviser.

Competitions for design-build and design-develop contracts go
far beyond commissions for conventional design activities. De-
sign expertise is just one component of a much larger organiza-
tional effort. While these competitions involve planning and
managerial issues beyond the scope of this book, several recom-
mendations are noted in Figure 7.4. This section, however, pri-
marily addresses the appropriate post-competition activities in
such competitions (Figure 7.5).

As might be expected, the activities which follow the initial
outcome of a design-build or design-develop competition are
more complex, relying heavily on legal, financial and construc-
tion issues. Competition results are commonly scrutinized by
many committees, officials and executives before construction
begins. These situations are also more newsworthy and attract
greater public attention, thereby requiring additional resources
for public relations.

An important post-competition issue is how the design quality of
a winning solution can be maintained and safeguarded when
design objectives become secondary to economic and political
realities. This is similar to the disappointing but nevertheless
legitimate compromises common to conventional construction
projects as they move from an initial concept to their final imple-

145

Figure 7.4 PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT
COMPETITIONS

In design-development competitions, design quality is only one of several key issues and
is frequently less important than economic and political concerns. This book cannot
address all the issues in design-development competitions. There are, however, several
basic suggestions loorth consideration. These are intended for competitions conducted
by public or quasi-public agencies whose goal is to award a contract for property
development. Often the final selection is made by the sponsor's governing body (e.g., a
board of directors or government council) rather than a jury. The appropriateness of
these recommendations depends upon the resources and expertise of the sponsor

Principle 1 Only a few developers should be invited to compete

A Narrow Field (e.g., two to five).

In many cases, developers will not give full, in-depth
attention to a development competition unless they perceive a
reasonable chance of success. This is especially true of
development corporations that have reputations for high-
quality projects. They may ignore a competition simply
because they have other, more promising, investment
opportunities. Even when there is a strong market that can
attract many developers, it is still advisable to limit the
invitations to the best candidates.

Principle 2 Invitations to developers should be based on a

Good Track Record thorough analysis of their past performance.

This analysis should include an evaluation of design quality
as well as financial and political issues. When possible,
sponsors should visit the projects completed by candidates
atid intervieu^ those key individuals to whom the dci^eloper
was responsible.

Principle 3

Matched

Competitors

The invited competitors should be equally matched in
terms of economic and political strength.

It is not wise, for example, to conduct a competition
including both large out-of-town dei^elopment corporations
and local, smaller developers. This situation is unbalanced
politically and economically. As a result, important design
issues may be completely obscured in the ensuing
competition.

A reasonable option is to require or recommend affiliations
betuven local and outside firms, or betuwni firms with
different economic resources or dei'clopment expertise.
Balancing the strength of the competitors, helps focus
attention on relevant design and development isstdes.

146

•\T

Figure 7.4 Continued

Principle 4 The time given to competitors to prepare their

Short Proposal submissions should be relatively short (e.g., four to

Times six weeks).

y.i

Given longer preparation periods each competitor usually
assumes that the other competitors will use the added time to
invest more resources. Each competitor then feels obligated to
do the same. A short preparation time, however, implies a
lower cost of preparation for all competitors — there is
simply not enough time to spend more money. Therefore,
most developers will view shorter proposal times as
implying a lower investment of resources for entering
the competition.

Principle 5

Inexpensive

Presentations

Competitors should be required to use simple,
inexpensive presentation techniques.

Presentations could be limited, for example, to only a few
black-and-white drawings with no models or photographs.
Here too, each competitor knows that other competitors
cannot over-invest in the presentation of a proposal. This
reduces the cost of competing and, at the same time,
gives no competitor an unfair advantage.

More elaborate presentations should be required only when
important public hearings or announcements are necessary.
But even in these instances the sponsor should set required
limits on the scope of work.

Figure 7.4 Continued

Principle 6 The sponsor should allocate in-house experts to

Coaching Staff provide equal assistance to all competitors in

preparing proposals.

In design-development competitions there are often many
more programmatic options and uncertainties then in
conventional competitions. In such cases it is unwise to
preclude all sponsor-competitor communication. Good staff
assistance normally improves the quality of all the competing
proposals and thereby serves the sponsor's best interests. In
some cases sponsors hire consultants to act on their behalf in
these situations (e.g., designers, managers, programmers and
economists).

The staff may assist competitors privately or in group
meetings. In all cases, however, information given to
one competitor should be communcated to all others.

This is the only way to ensure a fair competition and avoid
the procedural difficulties that occur when one competitor can
be shown to have had an unfair advantage.

Principle 7
Design Direction

To increase the likelihood of design excellence, the
sponsor should prepare a clear design direction (or
strong guidelines) to be considered by the developers.

Designers are usually hired by developers as members of a
competition team. Giving these designers clear guidelines
usually increases the likelihood of design quality. It permits
the designer, as only 07ie member of a team, to emphasize and
advocate for the higher design quality the spo?isor wants.

To prepare design guidelines, sponsors may hire other design
professionals to act on their behalf. Design guidelines should
include both general statements as uvll as specific graphic
illustrations. The guidelines should clearly distinguish
required, recommended and optional features.

148

Figure 7.4 Continued

Principle 8
Restricting
Communications

In most cases, competitors should be prohibited from
communicating their proposals to any parties other
than designated members of the sponsor's staff.

Competitors will normally try to improve their chances of
winning by seeking support from the general public,
influential private parties or public officials. This often
involves the use of public relations experts and lobbyists. In
some cases this process is legitimate and helpful. In most
cases such activity is counter-productive during the
competition.

The generally superior option is to encourage thorough public
scrutiny of all the submissions, on an equal basis, after they
have been completed and presented to the sponsor, but before
a final selection has been made. Moreover, it should be the
sponsor who is responsible for conducting public
presentations and discussion and not the competitors.

Principle 9 Competitors should be required to submit a

Commitment substantial cash payment along with their proposal (to

Dollars From be refunded only if their solution is rejected).

Competitors

This is a typical practice in many developer competitions.
Required payments might range from $10,000 to $50,000
depending on the scope of the project. This payment
discourages capricious entries by developers. The payment is
not refunded to the winner — it may or may not be credited
toward subsequent payments by the winning developer (e.g.,
a credit toward the payment for a land parcel). There may be
a series of two or three of such payments during the course of
a competition (e.g., the first to enter, the second for a second
stage in the competition and a third to secure a final
contract). The payment is refunded to developers who do not
win or who are not advanced to a final round of competition.

Principle 10
Commitment
Dollars From the
Sponsor

The sponsor should award some compensation to each
competitor, whose proposal is rejected as a sign of the
sponsor's commitment to the project and the
competition.

Guaranteeing a cash payment to all competitors is a clear
sign to competitors that the sponsor is serious about the
project. It also shows competitors that the sponsor
understands the level of resources which competitors must
invest in preparing proposals. The payment is usually made
to rejected competitors at the end of each stage in the
competition.

149

mentation. In competitions, however, special provisions can be
made to protect the design quahty after a winner is selected, such
as strong design review procedures or penalties for non-compli-
ance with design decisions.

Protecting design excellence is made even more difficult when
the sponsor does not commission the designer but rather enters
into a contract with a real estate developer, building contractor or
manufacturer who has won the competition. In such cases, con-
tracts should contain explicit provisions which prohibit, or at
least restrict, substantial design changes without the mutual
agreement of both the sponsor and winning designer.

7.5 ARCHIVAL RECORDS

All too often both the sponsor and the design community forget
that many solutions — not just the first prize — have significant
value. The forgotten or latent value of the work may become
apparent only in later years. At the time of the competition only
several solutions may seem especially innovative or interesting.
A few years later, however, with new political, economic and
social circumstances, the perceived value of all the submissions
will probably be different. There may be a whole range of worth-
while ideas that simply went unrecognized.

It is difficult to perceive latent value at the time of the competi-
tion, since any one submission may be the right solution for a set
of circumstances that have yet to emerge. This is a speculative
attitude, but the circumstances which define the competition
problem will probably change, and a non-winning solution may
later, be of substantial value. Therefore, retaining an archival
record of the entire competition will significantly benefit the
sponsors. Such comprehensive record-keeping requires modest
resources given its potential utility.

Still another hidden value of record-keeping derives from the
unique opportunity to research and explore the nature of the
design professions through a comparative analysis of design
concepts and approaches. The work of many famous designers is
often discovered much later in their past competition submis-
sions.

Design competitions are not scientifically controlled surveys
with representative samples. They are instead a uniquely disci-
plined form of intellectual dialogue among designers. Since each

150

Figure 7.5 POST-COMPETITION CONSTRUCTION
AND DEVELOPMENT

When awarding contracts for construction or property development, post-competition
activities are particularly complex and time-consuming. In many cases the issues to be
considered go beyond the scope of this book. At a minimum, however, the sponsor
should consider the following:

1. Professional
Assistance

Sponsors will require professional assistance for:

a. construction or development contracts

b. subsequent contract administration

c. construction management

d. property management

e. marketing strategies.

2. Scheduling and
Implementation

3. Design Contract
Options

Sponsors usually develop a schedule or work program
which includes:

a. governmental review and approval

b. public hearings

c. financing arrangements

d. construction scheduling

e. occupancy dates

f. project staging.

When awarding a design-build or a design-
development contract the sponsor:

a. may require the designer of the winning solution to
provide services as a sub-contractor to the builder or
developer

b. require the designer to sign a separate contract to provide
services directly to the sponsor.

4. Design In design-build or design-developer competitions.

Safeguards sponsors should consider special safeguards to protect

the design quality of winning solutions during
subsequent design development. Examples of such
safeguards are:

a. mandated sponsor review and approval of any design
changes

b. formal negotiation procedures for any design
modifications (e.g., third-party review procedures for
major design changes)

c. penalties or similar contractual contingencies for making
major alterations to the design.

151

Figure 7.6 ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

In almost all competitions there is an opportunity to create an archive or similar record
of the results. To do this sponsors should consider:

1. Professional Creating an archive may require the assistance of:

Assistance

a. curators

b. historians

c. librarians

d. educators and critics

e. design researchers.

2. Funding Sources Sponsors may wish to request funds or additional
support from:

a. professional design associations

b. foundations

c. museums and universities

d. historical societies

e. other design-related cultural institutions.

3. Location

In addition to the sponsor's offices or facility, the
archive may be located at:

a. the headquarters of a design association

b. libraries or nniseums

c. historical societies

d. universities or other cultural institutions.

4. Access and
Control

As with any collection, a competition archive should
be operated effectively. This includes:

a. safe storage and security

b. regulations governing access by the general public,
researchers and design exph'rts

c. periodic listings of archiuil contents in appropriate
publications

d. contingencies for the termination of the archive or its
transfer to another facility.

152

Figure 7.6 Continued

Contents of the The sponsor should ensure that complete records are

Archives kept of the competition including information about.

a. The Designers

The archive must include a complete list of all entrants,
cross-referenced to identify the designer for each
submission.

b. The Solutions

In a hierarchy of importance, competition archives should
contain original submissions including:

• all winning solutions

• those non-winning solutions designated by the jury for
the purposes of exhibition and publication

• additional solutions selected by a curator, the sponsor or
adviser, the advisory panel or design professionals.

In addition a photographic record should be made of
winning solutions, drawings or models which are likely to
deteriorate significantly and non-winning submissions
which will not be retained.

c. Commentaries

A complete competition record should contain:

• the jury report and all other recorded jury comments

• written comments from the sponsor, advisor and
advisory panel

• public responses

• written comments from professional critics.

d. Documents

All competition documents should be included, such as:

• the compeition poster and/ or announcements

• the competition program

• catalogues and brochures

• news, magazine and journal articles.

e. Additional Photographs

It is advisable to include photographs of:

• the competition site and its physical context

• the jury activities

• public events and press conferences

• the winning competitors

• the sponsor, adviser and advisory panel.

153

designer solves the same problem according to predetermined
requirements, the overall pattern of ideas which emerges serves
as an intellectual benchmark and statement of current thinking.

This is especially true in competitions whose purpose is to pro-
duce work which represents the state-of-the-art.

Juries of recognized design experts add still another dimension
of meaning to this intellectual dialogue. The jury's commentary
may be as significant as their decision. Too often information is
recorded about only the top few submissions. The jurors' obser-
vations about other solutions and ideas are frequently lost. Here
again, there may be an opportunity to create a significant historic
record, especially with jurors who have strong reputations as
critics as well as designers. This is analogous to judicial rulings
where the content of majority opinions and dissenting opinions
can be as important to legal tradition and future practice as is the
decision itself.

Developing a good archive requires special skills and techniques
(Figure 7.6). It may be useful to seek professional assistance from
curators, historians and others with expertise in archival activi-
ties. Traditional photographic and sound-recording techniques
as well as newer video and computer-based technologies should
be considered. Significant additional resources, however, are not
always necessary. Some archival needs are covered by resources
normally allocated for other competition activities, such as the
recording of written and graphic information for reports and
catalogues.

A successful archival record, however, does require careful orga-
nization of information. At the simplest level, there should be an
accurate record of the name and affiliation oi each designer or
design team and the corresponding solution number (too often
these lists are misplaced or left incomplete). At another level, the
archive might include information about the overall tvpologies
of solutions, especially if the jury has classified designs accord-
ing to merit or to the type of design. Such critical observations go
beyond simple record-keeping and mav require the analytic
skills of the jurors, adviser, design critics and other experts.

In conclusion, arrangements should be made tor convenient,
meaningful access to an archival record. Such arrangements
need not be expensive. If thev cannot be prt)\'ided b\' the spon-
sor, a local library or educational institution may be willing io

154

cooperate. The final disposition of the archive should be based
on the convenience of public access, the care and preservation of
the materials and the likelihood that the archive will be main-
tained over a long period (and not casually discarded after a few
years). The archive may not be considered useful until several
years or decades have passed, when scholars, professionals or
community leaders rediscover the competition as a lost treasure
and renew their interest in the outcomes.

155

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Recent Works On Competitions

General Discussions of Competitions

American Institute of Architects. Handbook of Architectural Design
Competitions. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Archi-
tects, 1981.

Marlin, William, "Federal Architecture: Suppressed Desires or
Released Designs" Inland Architect, July/August 1984.

National Endowment for the Arts, Design Arts Program. Design
Competition Manual. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Vision: The
Center for Environmental Design and Education, 1980.

National Endowment for the Arts, Design Arts Program. Design
Competition Manual, 1980; Design Competition Manual 11: On-Site
Charette, 1981; Design Competition Manual III: A Guide for Spon-
sors, 1984; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Vision: The Center for
Environmental Design and Education.

Pittas, Michael ]. and Smith, Janet M., guest editors. Urban De-
sign International, Winter 1985, 5 (2); review of 18 competitions.

Spreiregen, Paul D. Design Competitions. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1979.

Strong, Judith. Participating in Architectural Competitions: A Guide
for Competitors, Promoters, and Assessors. London: The Architec-
tural Press, Ltd., 1976.

Witzling, Lawrence P., Alexander, Ernest R. and Casper, Dennis
J. "Urban Design Competitions Make a Comeback". Planning.
1985, 51 (1), 10-17.

Wynne, George C. (Ed.) Winning Designs: The Competition Renais-
sance. In the Learning From Abroad series. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Council for International Urban Liaison with Institute for
Environmental Action, 1981.

156

Books and Articles on Specific Competitions

Anonymous "Vietnam Veterans Memorial Design Competi-
tion". Architectural Record. 1981, 169 (June), 47.

Freeman, Allen "An Extraordinary Competition". American In-
stitute of Architects Journal. 1981, 70 (August), 47-53.

Gunn, Sandra. Eagleridge: An Architectural Design Competition
from Inside the Jury Room. Dallas, Texas: Innerlmages, Inc., 1983.

Nevins, Deborah (Ed.) The Roosevelt Island Housing Competition.
New York: The Architectural League of New York, 1975.

Witzling, Lawrence P. and Farmer, W. Paul. Anatomy of a Competi-
tion: Urban Design for Milwaukee's Lakefront. Milwaukee: Universi-
ty of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Architecture and Urban
Planning Research, 1982.

Witzling, Lawrence P. "Making Waves: The Milwaukee Lake-
front Competition", Inland Architect, November/December 1983,
27 (6), 17-25.

157

aHT

QYiA

yionAimmiMQA

8/[OITITaqM03

Yaimai

OV1AW2JJO

33M3i!WAJ
OMIJSTIW

JAWOITAl/I

TWHMWoawa

2T51A HHT ^OH

VIDIZHQ

2T>IA

MA5I005iq

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Planning and administration of design competitions"

See other formats